>I prefer to discuss the scientific options prior to any discussion of the
>implications. This is my style, and the way I have always tried to
>proceed. So if you don't mind, lets discuss the issue with respect to
>science, then when we understand what we can about the science, we can
>discuss the implications for whatever world view you wish to attach.
Alright, I will yield to your wishes. Of course you must realize that our
styles in this regard are at opposite ends of the spectrum. :-) I prefer to
look at the data and go immediately to the global implications. It is more
fun that way.
But someday, you need to return the favor and talk about the global
implications of what we know NOW rather than what we will know in the future.
>Whatever moldic fossils are (that's a term I have never heard, but will
>assume it refers to fossils represented by molds), if they have evidence of
>the form of the organism, there is no reason to doubt their origin. In the
>case of all rhizoliths I have observed personally or have seen reported in
>the literature, there was no direct evidence of their having been made by
>roots. If there are cases where they do show such evidences, in those
>cases I would accept their suggested origin, but to extrapolate that to all
>"rhizoids" uncritically, makes no more sense than suggesting that because
>there is a fern leaf inside a Mazon Creek nodule, all Mazon Creek nodules
>are made by fern leaves (I have some containing insect larvae), except that
>here there remains the possibility that the unknown "fern leaf" nodules
>could be opened to reveal what was really inside, a luxury not available
>when considering the origin of "rhizoids". So, yes, I think it is wise to
>withold judgment until a lot more is known.
I would disagree with your logic above. Coal balls don't preserve the shape
of either the fern leaves or the larvae. But rhizoliths preserve the
dendritic pattern of root systems. Little in this world except plants have
this pattern.
>
>
>>Weathering of glauconite from other beds and its deposition in a terrestrial
>>bed would require time and so is inconsistent with any global flood view
>>(whoever might hold such a view should take note)
>
>Sure is. But that is not the only way to obtain glauconite. If you dumped
>a seabed containing glauconitic sand into another basin, the glauconite
>would not then be second generation, or require time.
The lack of glauconite in these Eolian deposits and its presence in other
rocks in the same area such as the Muav limestone of the Grand Canyon. What
sourced the Mauv and didn't source the Coconino or Navajo?
>
>>I am not sure I fully understand this, but Saudi Arabia was receiving
>>carbonate for almost all of geologic history. The entire Omani column is
>>carbonates with small amounts of shale.
>
>I hate to let such an interesting problem die without further explanation:-))
I know what you are going to say :-), but I couldn't parse your original
sentence.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm