Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sedimentary Rock Formation
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 2 (238184)
08-29-2005 4:18 AM


A common YEC position is that all, or nearly all, sedimentary rock layers are due to waterborne sediments. This would be particularly true of fossil-bearing layers.
Yet, I think traditional geology holds that some of the layers are the result of water-borne sediments that were cemented by minerals while others are the result of wind-carried sediments that have compacted into stone. (And, perhaps, I have over-simplified it).
At any rate, I would like to see a discussion of why certain layers could NOT have been the result of water-borne sediments. I refer specifically to fossil-bearing layers that contain fossils of land-dwelling organisms.
AbE: I guess it should be noted for those who might not know...I am a YEC.
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-29-2005 04:19 AM

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (238407)
08-29-2005 8:59 PM


Thread copied to the Sedimentary Rock Formation thread in the Geology and the Great Flood forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024