From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:05:50 EST
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
As evidence for rapid deposition, we have bedded marine strata. In
marine environments today, bioturbation will commonly destroy bedding
planes in the top few inches of the bottom sediment in less than a week.
Yet we commonly find thin-bedded, fossiliferous units.
Bivalve fossils (eg. clams) are commonly found closed, yet today when
bivalves die the shells open and are disarticulated. Articulated
bivalves are further evidence for rapid burial.
Paraconformities, such as that between the Middle Cambrian Muav limestone
and the overlying Lower Mississippian Redwall limestone of Grand Canyon,
show lapses of time in deposition (in this case about 200 million years),
yet show almost no physical evidence for the break in deposition. The
lack of erosion and chemical weathering where there was supposedly a
significant time break indicates continuous deposition, which would of
course screw up the geologic time scale.
Please point out the false statements and semantic games.
Bill
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:05:45 EST