Sedimentary Rock Formation

Does this mean that you deny modern sand dunes are the product of eolian deposition? Or do you deny that eolian dunes formed in the past, but certainly can in the present? If so why? Dunes are modern analogs to features in the geological record.

Yes, and land animals at that. This is what makes discussions with YECs so frustrating. Now I need to know what you mean by 'dune-analogous', and I have to prove something 'absolutely'.First, there is ample evidence from sorting data to gross structural information, to fossils, to textural features, that so strongly suggest subaerial origin that it is pure denial to suggest otherwise. My point in the last post was that, if sand dune could form in the present (I assume you accept this), then why could they NOT be found in the geologic record?We are not discussing absolutes here. If you want to know that you need to go outside science. Science is about evidence and explanations. I cannot prove absolutely that my wristwatch is correct, either, but I can be pretty sure that it will get me to work on time. Does that mean my watch is correct or incorrect? In a real sense...Now, do you subject your own worldview to the same scrutiny? Can you prove YEC absolutely? If not, why then, do you require absolute proof from science?

Well, there you go. You don't know anything about topics that geologists have been studying for generations. And you feel competent to say they are all wrong... Are you sure you could be wrong? Wrong again. On at least two accounts. No. I'm sure this would be a waste of time on my part. YOu have shown no inclination to learn up to this point. Why would that change?This message has been edited by edge, 09-10-2005 12:37 AM

Then why do we call them volcaniclastics and pyroclastics? Then why do we all them 'alluvial'? Or are you thinking of talus?However, your points are well taken. It is quite clear to most of us that YECs are woefully uneducated in geological studies and it can be seen in the poor, repetitive quality of their arguments. Right now we are in a lull on this forum, but as soon as a new batch of bright-eyed YECs come along, fully charged with propaganda from various creationist websites, I'm sure things will heat up again; at least until they are, once again, driven away by an obvious lack of ammunition. Yeah, me to, but probably considerably longer...

Volcanologists might disagree. Welcome to the vagaries of geological terminology. The problem is that this is a gray area between purely sedimentary and volcanic environments. Somehow, I fail to visualize fiamme as sedimentary structures. Sort of like in 'cataclastic rocks'? There is a lot of confusion in the literature here. A clast is a broken rock fragment, regardless of origin and yet a clastic rock is universally recognized as being equivalent to a sedimentary rock. Geologists seem to work around this okay, but just never have gotten around to agreeing on how to resolve it. This disagreement remains despite the fact that YECs claim geologists can are party a world-wide conspiracy to hide radiometric dates, etc. How about 'crystal tuffs'? Sorry, GJ, I'm just taking a little advantage of you here. I am glad that you are studying geology and understand as much as you do. Believe me, new worlds await you.

We've been having a little fun here at GJ's expense. I hope that he understands that we all went through this early in our careers. We all paid our dues. Keep up the studies, GJ.