[Glenn]
> >>Once again, I cite the guys who have looked at this. I will admit that I
> >>haven't examined the strata myself, but I doubt that you would require
> >>personal examination of every piece of evidence.
> >
[Arthur]
> >Yes, I do. This is the essence of what I have spent my life doing, and so
> >far in every case (after years of investigation), we have found
> >conventional theory to be either wrong, or at least vulnerable to
> >reinterpretation.
>
[Glenn]
> Well, in this case, I will carefully watch to see if you make statements
> about things you have not personally looked at. :-) Let's see. You always
> cite Buchheim about the Green River varves not being varves because there is
> a variable number of layers between two tuffs in Fossil Lake. Have you
> counted the layers between those two tuffs? If not, you are trusting the
> expert to inform you of what he has seen. And if you can trust Buchheim,
> why can't I others to tell me the truth? ;-)
I know Arthur is perfectly capable of speaking for himself - but I
nearly jumped in to support his [cited] comments, and Glenn's response
provides even more of a stimulus.
My field experience is not as extensive as Arthur's, but I have seen a
good many rocks in the field and have heard excursion leaders talk about
the rocks. The problem I find is that most geologists approach the
interpretation of the rocks with a uniformitarian mindset: drawing on
Hutton's rock cycle and Lyell's developments of it. The field data is
squeezed into this framework. Whilst there is a growing awareness that
non-uniformitarian processes can legitimately be invoked, there is very
little change in the way geologists interpret depositional environments.
Data is not absent that other explanations are feasible - but the general
problem is that the "uniformitarian mind" does not know what to look for.
In this situation, familiarity with field evidences AND an awareness of
alternative paradigms of interpretation are, in my opinion, vital. I
entirely concur with Arthur's comments.
Glenn challenges this position with an example taken from counting varves.
But the challenge is ineffective: to cite someone's description of
research data is not to adopt their interpretation of that data. One mark
of a good research paper is that the data is accessible to other
researchers, so that others can check, rework and possibly reinterpret the
data. Unfortunately, many geology research papers are so locked into an
interpretative paradigm that it is very difficult to distinguish between
data and interpretation.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.