>If
>I implied in my initial post that there were none, then I apologize. If
>the existence of ANY organic frameworks in the stratigraphic record
>falsifies the Nevins/Austin claim, I agree with you that it's been
>falsified.
You may not have implied that there were no frameworks and I may merely have
inferred this. But I think we are in basic agreement here.
>
>Once again, the details will differ from period to period because the
>organisms that build the bioherms are different and grow together,
>cement, and erode in different ways, but the facies zonations, reef
>geometries, physiographic relationships, etc., are remarkably similar all
>through the Phanerozoic. As Braithwaite emphasized, it is important to
>study the details before making an interpretation, so we must look at
>each geologic period's organic buildups on their own terms. Modern reefs
>offer us a guide or a pattern, not a rigid framework (sorry about the
>pun) for interpretation. When geologists make comparisons using
>uniformitarian or actualistic approaches, they should not, and usually do
>not, abandon the uncommon sense that science demands. I know from your
>many posts that this is what you believe, also.
I would fully agree that each period, with their different organisms needs
to be studied on their own. Thus I agree with the above. But since I
consider the thrust of the argument that the global flood doesn't have to
incorporate sufficient time for bioherms (or reefs) to grow I chose to
emphasis the data that falsifies what Austin is saying.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm