In message <dd22es$of6$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com>
writes
>
>If even Frank Zindler, editor of the American Atheist, has admitted
>that the Green River shale does not demonstrate "true varves" (
>http://www.rae.org/Varves2.htm for details ) then I don't see that we
>know what accounts for the structure of the shale in question. He says
>in correspondence with Brother Paul G. Humber in March 1999 that they
>are not "true varves" - well, when is a varve not a varve? When it's
>good for a larve?
>
>Either something is a varve or it isn't. There is no "true varves", as
>there is no "try". Did he chain them up to a lie detector and discover
>they were lying? Shale on them! Varvarian varves!
>
>If they are not varves, as we can conclude from his own admission, then
>they show us no conclusive evidence about the age of the earth.
>
>But thanks for bluffing, anyway.
Have you considered a career in the motion picture industry?
Frank Zindler is quoted by that web page as describing the Green River
Formation as "annual layers (not true varves)". "True varves" isn't
defined, but I would infer that the term is being restricted to
sedimentary layering resulting from annual pulses of glacial meltwater.
Considering the climate of the Eocene it seems unlikely that anyone ever
thought that the Green River Formation layers resulted from pulses of
glacial meltwater, rather than some other cause of annual variation in
sediment delivery.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005
|
|