Re: extra stuff

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 17:52:22 EDT

  • Next message: Keith Miller: "Re: extra stuff"

    I am simply unable to follow any of your arguments, except that you are
    simply unable to even consider the possibility that you dont know any
    geology or rather understand geology.

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
    To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:16 PM
    Subject: Re: extra stuff

    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    >
    > > The problem is that the geological column is basically the same
    throughout
    > > the world. I am personally familiar with it in the Grand Canyon, Black
    Hills
    > > UK the Alps . Italy and South Africa. Others have found and seen that it
    is
    > > the same elsewhere.
    >
    > At Grand Canyon, the geologic record shows a paraconformity [meaning, the
    > contact is not visible or there is no evidence of erosion, w/ages
    differences
    > defined by fossils] between the Muav Limestone and the Redwall limestone
    where
    > 100 million years of the Geologic Column are missing. S. Beus says that
    "the
    > unconformity [paraconformity], even though representing more than 100
    million
    > years can be difficult to locate" (Beus, SS, 1990, Temple Butte Formation.
    In
    > Beaus SS, Morales M, eds. 1990. Grand Canyon Geology, Oxford University
    Press, p
    > 107-117.)
    >
    > Also, "the location of the boundary between the Manakach and Wescogami
    > formations [a 14 million year paraconformity] can be difficult to
    determine,
    > both from a distance and from a close range." (Blakey RS. 1990. Supai
    group and
    > Hermit formations. in Grand Canyon Geology [see above] p 147-182).
    >
    > This illustrates how imaginary the Geologic Column is, and illustrates the
    > difference between the Geologic Record at Grand Canyon and the supposed
    Geologic
    > Column.
    >
    > You will note [below] that I did not say Geologic Column was not generally
    the
    > same from place to place, but that the Geologic Record is not the same
    from
    > place to place. The Geologic Record (the formations what you actually see
    and
    > find) at Grand Canyon is not the same record as found in other places even
    > across the USA. So one would not expect to find the geologic record of a
    > location in Africa, or Asia, or Australia to be the same. It's the
    imaginary
    > Geologic Column which people claim to find all over the world.
    >
    > > > And, Creationists do not, in general, propose that the geologic record
    in,
    > > say,
    > > Grand Canyon, is going to be the same as in Africa, Asia or Australia.
    >
    > Allen
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 17:51:24 EDT