>Considering that Dallas is built on chalk of the same age as the Dover
>Chalk, I would be very interested in your explanation. The Austin Chalk can
>be followed from Mexico (where it is called the San Felipe formation) across
>Texas and Dallas, then it dives to the east of Dallas and goes under
>Louisiana. I drilled a well in 1984 in St. Bernard Parish, Lousiana to a
>depth of 24,329 feet. We encountered the Austin Chalk at 18,000 feet. We
>drilled 2000 feet of chalk(which as you know is about 70-90% dead
>microscopic animals) and then found the Woodbine formation at 20,000 feet.
>If the chalk is post flood, where did the 20,000 feet of sediment above the
>Austin chalk in Louisiana come from? I would be interested in an outline of
>your theory and how it applies to St. Bernard Ph. Louisiana.
I would like to challenge you to do some really creative thinking and see
if you can come up with an explanation consonant with a shoret chronology.
I'll bet you could if you put your creative mind to it. That is what I
mean by checking things out. And don't just tell me it's impossible.
Figure out a way to make it happen. That's what it has been like in every
problem we have tackled. It looked impossible until we actually had put in
a few years work on it. But they always end up revealing something
remarkable about the assumptions prevalent in geology today. (Incidentally
we will be presenting our Tapeats paper at the Int'l Sed. Congress in Spain
in April!)
> Go look at the coral reef removed from Miocene strata from Virginia on p.
> 606 of Dott and Batten, _Evolution of the Earth_, (St. Louis, McGraw-Hill,
> 1971). Also look at the connected colonial Halysites colony from the
>Silurian rock in Dott and Batton, p. 607. While some reefs are better
>described as bioherms, there are some in-situ grown reefs which are never
>discussed by the YECs.
>
>
>>
>>I do not have quotations to hand, but there are a number of
>>carbonate specialists who readily acknowledge that
>>uniformitarianism has not delivered satisfactory depositional
>>models for carbonates.
>
>If you find them I would be interested in hearing them. Clyde Moore lead my
>first carbonate field trip and he seemed quite happy with actualism. This
>was in 1983 and I was very depressed after seeing all the evidence for life
>in the carbonate rocks of Texas. I stood on the Caprinid reef at Pipe Creek
>south of Austin. One could see about 2 acres of connected animals and
>moldic porosity. It was an awesome site for someone (like me in 1983) who
>believed that there were no connected reefs in the geologic column.
You might be surprised what size reefs have been described as transported
asemblages. Some of Melvin Cook's papers on the Paleozoic Reefs of Canada
reinterpret every one of what until then were considered legitimate coral
reefs, as autochthonous. See my paper in Origins (5:39-46) on transported
assemblages for more details. Maybe some of them have not been
transported, but on this point the longer you wait, the more autochthonous
reef assemblages become allochthonous.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu