Fossil Ordering Re-Visited

How interesting that the actual facts are linked primarily to journal cites, but not a single reputable pr journal source endorses YECism, you have to pull those cites in from YEC magazines.A few minor points:(1) It doesn't mean anything to me that a basalt flow that is "thousands of years old" is flat because I have seen many flows in the West US that are "thousands of years old" and essentially flat. There are wrinkle ridges and lava tubes but the flows themselves are relatively flat like the journals describe in the Deccan traps.(2) If the Redwall Limestone "looks like" it was never an erosion surface, then why does this figure portray it as being cut by channels? Why did your lengthy quote fail to cite the claim that it "looks like" it wasn't eroded? Come to think of it, if the GC formed catastrophically why do any of its members show channel deposits at all?I'd go a little easier on the Creationist cites, btw.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-02-2002]

I own a copy of the book. Category ESR1 in the Sourcebook Catalogue is a collection of anomalies dealing with the stratigraphic record. ESR1 X4 (p. 63) is the Grand Canyon and is only a few paragraphs long. X4 is referenced to R22, which is:(ta-da)Waisberger, William, et. al. "Mississippian and Cambrian Interbedding: 200 Million Years Hiatus in Question," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 23:160, 1987.Next is a more mainstream source that confirms that the discomformity exists, says that the parallelism of strata (note: not the lack of erosion) is unusual and caused by the area not being exposed to significant tectonic activity. This is from:Strahler, Arthur N.; "Stratigraphy and the Fossil Record," Science and Earth History, Buffalo, 1987.For future reference, I have each of Corliss' Sourebook volumes dealing with geology. However, there have been no new editions for about a decade or so and at least 40% of the "anomalies" are being pushed by Creationists. The non-geology volumes don't have that problem.I also think I killed the original claim by pointing out that there *are* erosional surfaces there.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-04-2002]

[QUOTE][B]200 million years and it sits so neatly on top of the previous formation?[/QUOTE][/B]This is getting tedious. Did you see either of my links above?

[QUOTE][B]Growing numbers of geologists now believe that Marble Canyon and the Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old -- veritable infants on the geologic time scale, and much younger than the earlier 3-million- to 5-million-year-old estimates. Some scientists now believe that a third of the canyon's depth may have been cut in the blink of a geologic eye -- perhaps during the past 600,000 to 700,000 years.[/QUOTE][/B]Well, I guess that ruins the Creationist timescale. Nice Old Earth evidence Blitz.

[QUOTE][B]But it has to be interpreted. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions.[/QUOTE][/B]Conclusions can also be tested, because they make predictions. Also you should collect enough evidence to rule out any interpretations other than one.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-06-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.[/QUOTE][/B]Is that a hypothesis?