> You're making several mistakes here Randy...
>
> 1. Yes, as Ager argues, there is evidence that many sections of the
> stratigraphic record were deposited episodically. There are, for
> example, sequences of rocks called turbidites near my field area
> in the Hudson Valley of New York State which are records of episodic
> submarine landslides. No one denies that the midwestern floods of a
> couple of years ago deposited much more sediment into the Gulf of Mexico
> than has been deposited this spring. Many young-earth creationists
> attribute a caricature of uniformitarianism to geologists but geologists
> do not believe that all sedimentation occurs at a very slow rate.
>
> 2. There are other sections in the stratigraphic record, however, that
> do seem to record very slow rates of sedimentation. Thick sequences
> of passive margin carbonates, for example. If these thick sequences
> formed quickly (in a year-long flood?), you would have to come up with
> a viable geochemical model for the deposition of thousands of feet of
> calcium carbonate from seawater in such a short period of time. Good
> luck since you'd need to invent new laws of thermodynamics to do it!
>
> 3. Ager, while admitedly arguing for more catastrophism in the geologic
> record than most geologists would be comfortable with, was by no means
> a supporter of a young earth and I'm not sure how your quoting him
> helps your case in any way. I believe Ager stated explicitely in one
> of his books (perhaps the one you're quoting from?) that he in no way
> endorses young-earth creationism.
>
> - Steve.
>
Ager insists, as do numerous leading geologists of today, that many of
the geologic deposits are actually a sequence of rapid catastrophic
deposits, usually water related.
Do you deny that Dr. Ager has spearheaded a revival in geology back
toward flood processes?
Are you a "neo-catastrophist"?
Randy