Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 34)
Message-ID: <551@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 18:10:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.551
Posted: Wed Jul 10 18:10:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:18:24 EDT
References: <388@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 39
Summary: 

In article <388@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
>    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
>
>    B.  TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
>        ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
>
>       63.  Practically nowhere on the earth  can  one  find  the  so-
>            called   ''geologic   column.''   [a]   In  fact,  on  the
>            continents, over half  of  the  ''geologic  periods''  are
>            ususally  missing,  and 15-20% of the earth's land surface
>            has less than one-third of these periods appearing in  the
>            ''correct''  order [b]. Even within the Grand Canyon, over
>            200 million years of this imaginary  column  are  missing.
>            Using  the  assumed  geologic  column  to date fossils and
>            rocks is fallacious.
>
	Oh, great, in another section you clain that the absence of
world-wide unconformities is argument agains uniformitarianism, now
you are complaining about the *existance* of unconformities! You can't
have it both ways, one or the  other argument *must* be invalid.
Please ask yourself how much of the Earth's surface is currently
subject to sedimentation? Not a whole lot really! Like all those upland
areas that are eroding instead of being added to! Of course there are
going to be large segments missing locally, since the sediment must
come from *somewhere*. Large, extensive uplands will be unrepresented
for long periods, since they take so long to be eroded to the point
of being low enough to retain sediment!

I will not even grace #64 with a further response.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen