From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 13:29:41 EDT
Unfortunately when I went down the Grand Canyon in August 2000 I did not have time to look at the junction of the Devonian and Cambrian. This was because I left the rim at 7.50 and wanted to get back out by 6, so I could only cursorily look at the strata. It was also rather hot with temperatures of 110 or so, I was taking it gently.
Davis Young dealt with this years ago and I suggest you put it on the ACG site where you will find geologists to give a good answer based on both field study and on the literature.
Meanwhile enjoy your victory and enjoy your porkpies as well
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Payne
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:41 PM
Subject: Paraconformities
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000 "Michael Roberts" writes:
> Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:12:30 -0500 I wrote:
****************
*/This/* 'one creationist argument' is now limited to one paraconformity in the Grand Canyon. I am simply asking that we address this one feature and tell me the best-fit-with-the-data explanation. We have a gap of */millions/* of years and erosional features limited to 8 feet or less! [snip...] Instead of putting the monkey on my back, tell me how you propose to erode (bevel) the entire Devonian section without lacerating the Cambrian Muav?
*****************
Based upon the silence since April 17, I am forced to conclude that I have successfully responded to Michael's challenge. I appreciate those who engaged this thread, and admit I learned more than probably anyone else.
So, Michael, would you like to quit while you're behind or shall we scrutinize more YEC arguments?
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 16:50:55 EDT