news:W+0C3YIS+d9CFwKl@meden.demon.co.uk...
> 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
>
What cause, though?
Uncle Davey
|
|