>GM: "But one can follow this "postflood" Niobrara north into
>Wyoming where it is buried 4000-8000 feet BENEATH the Green River
>formation! So that makes the Green River postflood also and thus
>the 6 million layers with the flattened fish must now be post
>flood in this model. This is why I had to reject the Global
>flood idea. Following a bed into the subsurface always created
>problems like this."
>
>Yes, I consider the Green River formation to be post-Flood. Why
>the incredulity? The reaction I'm getting from you is not so
>different from the reaction that you get from people who don't
>like your theory that all the hominid fossils came from people
>descended from Noah! Why should it be thought a "problem" to
>hold to a post-Flood Green River Formation? It _solves_ problems
>rather than creates them!
But if such a large portion of the geologic column is post flood (i.e.
thousands of feet) how long did it take that sediment to be deposited? When
was the flood in your view? I couldn't see the flood being anytime within
the past 80 million years under the view that 10,000 feet was post flood
deposition. I could show that the 30,000 feet of sediment at the mouth of
the Mississippi must also be post flood yet from the quantity of sediment
load is tripled over what we now see, the Mississippi River would take 30
million years to fill up that much sediment. So, if the reaction to my view
is unusual, what was Noah if the flood took place 80+/- million years ago?
Why have a global flood at all if you must have around 20% of the column is
post flood?
>
>GM: "Concerning your article, I can agree with much of it. There
>is a need for clear use of the terms bioherm and reef. There are
>bioherms in which frameworks are absent. But there are also
>reefs with frameworks present. I don't think that one can
>dismiss frameworks in the fossil record as easily as Austin tried
>to do."
>
>I'm glad we can start developing ideas with a shared position,
>even if we subsequently diverge! I do not want to "dismiss
>frameworks" easily. I've seen frameworks in the field. But (now
>it's my turn to use this word!) in addition to there being in
>situ frameworks, there are allochthonous frameworks, 'apparent'
>frameworks, and there are 'frameworks' of material that could be
>dispersed very easily by a current or a wave. Such a situation
>calls for some serious research, questioning the many "givens"
>of the past. I appreciated Art Chadwick's post on this thread -
> his experience seems to be similar to mine (if we do not look
>for alternative explanations that better fit the data, we are
>unlikely to find them).
I hear this refrain "look for an alternative explanation" all the time.
Remember who I am. I DID look at the world from an alternative framework. I
couldn't find anything that would satisfy ALL the data. Why must the data
from the world be so difficult to fit into the "True History" of the world?
I would submit that we have misunderstood that history and are trying to
force fit the data into our preferred theological position. If our
theological position was the truth, then the data would support it.
As to hominids being descended from Noah, if you or the critics can explain
how we can have altars and idols left by H. erectus and have him just be an
animal then go for it. I will stand on the data. (and no Stephen Jones,
this is not your cue).
>Local connections do not make an 'in-situ framework structure'.
>We all see such features in the field - but the research
>objective is to relate this to larger scale depositional
>environments, etc. This is where the paradigm of
>"uniformitarianism" has the tendency to force fit the data. I
>am not saying "they don't exist" - but in situ frameworks are far
>less frequently to be found than the literature suggests.
As I noted this morning the entire point of flood people pointing out the
"lack' of connected frameworks is to avoid the problem of needing time to
grow a reef in the middle of the flood. And I also noted that if you look
immediately under living reefs the rocks don't really look like reefs
anymore. There are broken off clasts. The clionid sponges eat through the
limestone fabric and the limestone chips they produce are then re-cemented.
The clionids destroy the fabric of modern reef deposits.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm