Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
299 replies to this topic

#261 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:39 PM

I think you totally misunderstood me and put words in my mouth. Fortunately, it's obvious enough that it doesn't need demonstrated by me because you made it painfully obvious. Thanks. ;)

View Post


I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, if I'm misunderstanding you please correct me. The way I read it you're saying that when Snelling says YEC lacks any kind of comprehensive model of the world that can account for strata, fossils, and radiometric dates what he is actually saying is that Creation scientists shouldn't make definitive statements about their conclusions like mainstream geologists do because that is a "lazy" way to do science. And while such sentiments can be admirable it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how many grains of salt we take this with we are still left with a view that has no comprehensive model that can deal with strata, fossils, and radiometric dates. That's kind of a problem, and it needs to be over come if anyone is ever going to take YEC seriously.

Now, to be fair, standard geology doesn't have an explanation for every single thing on planet earth either, but in science theories aren't accepted because they explain everything, but because they explain more than the last theory. It's kind of like if we were getting chased by a bear; to avoid getting eaten I don't have to be the fastest human being on the planet, I just have to be faster than you. In the same way YE geology doesn't need to have an answer to everything, but it does need to have more answers than standard geology. . .something it clearly does not have.

#262 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:51 PM

I think I would want to see exactly how Snelling addressed those points. Do you have a clip?

#263 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 04:21 PM

The way I read it you're saying that when Snelling says YEC lacks any kind of comprehensive model of the world that can account for strata, fossils, and radiometric dates what he is actually saying is that Creation scientists shouldn't make definitive statements about their conclusions like mainstream geologists do because that is a "lazy" way to do science.

View Post

What is lazy is the fact that doctrines of geology are made with huge holes in it because they are in line with the accepted orthodox view and not because of the power of explanation. Through creationism, I was amazed to learn the facts about Grand Canyon that I was never taught in school as I was convinced how 'clear' it was that that river carved that canyon out over millions of years.

When you say there are more things answered by Old Earth geology, I simply disagree and the flood model makes so much more sense to me, even with those things that we can't definitively answer ourselves.

What I think is interesting is the fact that no geologists actually give comprehensive tutorials that offer a frame of reference for how the earth and oceans formed. When their are explanations they are extremely vague and never the detail that a sound creationist explanation has.

Do you have a good video that geologists agree on as a good comprehensive view for how the major geological formations of the globe formed?

#264 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2009 - 09:22 PM

What I think is interesting is the fact that no geologists actually give comprehensive tutorials that offer a frame of reference for how the earth and oceans formed. When their are explanations they are extremely vague and never the detail that a sound creationist explanation has.

Do you have a good video that geologists agree on as a good comprehensive view for how the major geological formations of the globe formed?

View Post


I don't know about videos but this would be a good start:
http://www.fas.org/i...2/Sect2_1a.html
http://www.fas.org/i...2/Sect2_1b.html

#265 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:09 PM

I don't know about videos but this would be a good start:
http://www.fas.org/i...2/Sect2_1a.html
http://www.fas.org/i...2/Sect2_1b.html

View Post


Perhaps you think we are ignorant of the geologic timescale. The whole idea of a bunch of asteroids and rocks coming together and melting into a perfect sphere while at the same time keeping in perfect non-migrating orbit taxes one's patience (to be totally honest). Nothing can show us in the present that anything like this could happen--including the asteroid belt.

Then to believe that the first atmosphere was created by volcanoes which have so much CO2. Other variations of this model show alot of water vapor. This model is ludicrous. The green house effect would have given an atmosphere of severe heat and the water vapor would have never condensed to form your oceans. Check out the atmosphere of VENUS. Sorry, Instructorous, I don't mean to be so blunt, but the first tenants of the geologic timescale are ridiculous.

#266 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2009 - 01:02 PM

Perhaps you think we are ignorant of the geologic timescale. 


Or perhaps someone asked me.

Do you have a good video that geologists agree on as a good comprehensive view for how the major geological formations of the globe formed?


The whole idea of a bunch of asteroids and rocks coming together and melting into a perfect sphere while at the same time keeping in perfect non-migrating orbit taxes one's patience (to be totally honest).  Nothing can show us in the present that anything like this could happen--including the asteroid belt.


Whether or not this taxes your patience really doesn't affect whether or not the standard theory of the solar systems' formation is true. Some of your issues just don't make sense anyway. For instance, the earth is not a "perfect" sphere. Really though, what other shape is gravity supposed to group things into if not spheres? Gravity pulls in all directions so basically all parts of earth are trying to get to that center of gravity. Consequently, this theory explains the presence of heavy metals that make up earth's core as these metals were pulled toward that center of gravity faster than other materials that make up our planet, like rock.

And again that term "non-migrating orbit" keeps creeping up. . .why on earth would any body in the solar system have a "migrating" orbit? Orbits are determined by the gravitational pull of the sun, gravity is a function of mass, the sun has over 90% of the mass of the entire solar system concentrated in it hence it is the mass that pretty much tells everybody else what to do. To have a truly "migrating" orbit an object would have to be affected by a gravitational pull greater than the sun. Things like this make it seem like you aren't familiar with some of the underlying concepts involved here, which isn't a bad thing, but it is an issue that can be remedied.

Then to believe that the first atmosphere was created by volcanoes which have so much CO2.  Other variations of this model show alot of water vapor. This model is ludicrous.  The green house effect would have given an atmosphere of severe heat and the water vapor would have never condensed to form your oceans. 


Luckily earth is significantly further away from the sun from Venus, once the surface cooled our distance from the sun allowed our atmosphere to cool as well allowing water vapor to condense.

Sorry, Instructorous, I don't mean to be so blunt, but the first tenants of the geologic timescale are ridiculous.

View Post


I would encourage you to read past the first paragraph and, if questions arise, to seek out whether or not standard theories of geology actually have explanations for them. That doesn't mean you should accept them point blank, but at least let's see if the theories have explanations for your problems before we just throw them overboard. In each of the cases above we do. At any point can YEC provide a better explanation for these observations? If so how?

#267 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:58 AM

Continuing on, I'm wondering how YE geology explains the fossils forests of Yellow Stone National Park?

Posted Image

"That is to say, after the first forest grew and was entombed, there was a time without volcanic outburst—a period long enough to permit a second forest to grow above the first. This in turn was covered by volcanic material and preserved, to be followed again by a period of quiet, and these more or less regular alternations of volcanism and forest growth continued throughout the time the beds were in process of formation."

http://www.nps.gov/h...owlton/sec1.htm

"Evidence from stratigraphic relationships and petrographic analyses indicates that most upright tree stumps at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park were buried in place. These stumps are commonly rooted in a fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone that shows no petrographic evidence of being deposited by current action; in fact, most sandstones have textures resembling immature soils. Conglomerates that overlie these root-zone sandstones flow around and bury the vertical trunks. Trees were apparently killed in place by either mudflows or rising lake waters, giving rise to discontinuous, localized clusters of preserved trees in a given stratigraphic interval. However, the episodic nature of mudflow sedimentation indicates that these stacked clusters are likely remnants of successive forests with enough time between them to allow for incipient soil development."
http://geology.geosc...stract/12/3/159

This is a beautiful illustration of modern geology incorporating both gradual and rapid process' - each fossil forest represents a period of calm during which an entire forest gradually developed only to be successively obliterated and buried by volcanic fallout. Each of these catastrophic events was then followed by another period of calm during which another forest grew.

How would YE geology explain this formation?

#268 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:43 AM

Continuing on, I'm wondering how YE geology explains the fossils forests of Yellow Stone National Park?

View Post

You don't know? How long have you been debating this issue?

#269 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 September 2009 - 09:22 AM

Continuing on, I'm wondering how YE geology explains the fossils forests of Yellow Stone National Park? 

How would YE geology explain this formation?

View Post



Like this: Yellow Stone

#270 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:35 AM

Sorry, twice now it's telling me the BBc code is not right, I have an uneven number of tags. I have checked it twice and cn't find the error. So I had to color this.

Instructorous wrote:
Luckily earth is significantly further away from the sun from Venus, once the surface cooled our distance from the sun allowed our atmosphere to cool as well allowing water vapor to condense.

Distance has little to do with the greenhouse effect that would occur. Creationists had to leave the vapor canopy model behind because the greenhouse effect with a vapor canopy over the earth would cause the temp to rise to over 600 degrees F at the lowest, according to computer models.

We have less than 1% CO2 in the atmosphere now and we are concerned about global warming. The standard geo volcanically caused atmosphere has very high levels of CO2 along with WATER VAPOR. Even if the first alleged ocean was very low, steam takes 1700 times the volume of liquid water, so there was alot of vapor hypothetically. The heat would have never allowed the H20 vapor to condense.

Not only that with the extreme heat, what chemical reactions would have results with N and methane in the atmosphere?

Instructorous wrote:
Really though, what other shape is gravity supposed to group things into if not spheres? Gravity pulls in all directions so basically all parts of earth are trying to get to that center of gravity.


What was the original "center of gravity" in the beginning stages of our planet? The larger objects have more gravity. How do you get a small object to begin to pull objects into it? We should be able to see this happening in the asteroid belt. Newtonian physics (and I'm not a physicist, but I know enough to know this) would predict bumping and bouncing if two objects collide in space--this is exactly what happens in the asteroid belt.

Instructorous wrote:
And again that term "non-migrating orbit" keeps creeping up. . .why on earth would any body in the solar system have a "migrating" orbit?

You could probably ask the astrophysicists who postulate migration of the new planets they are discovering around stars. A few of them are larger than Jupiter, as close in their orbit as Mercury and have elliptical orbits of days or weeks (one has 8 days).

Funny that they can migrate in, but to ask why that wouldn't happen to us is considered out of the question by staus quo science. It's too inconvenient to consider.

Instructorous wrote:
Orbits are determined by the gravitational pull of the sun, gravity is a function of mass, the sun has over 90% of the mass of the entire solar system concentrated in it hence it is the mass that pretty much tells everybody else what to do.

The sun did not determine the momentum of the earth. Our satellites must be continually adjusted in orbit, because gravity causes drag and gradually slows the satellite. In the standard model there is no explanation for a physical mechanism that would keep the earth in orbit 4.6 b revolutions.

"Orbital decay from gravitational radiation
Gravitational radiation robs the orbiting bodies of energy. As the energy of the orbit reduces, the distance between the bodies decreases, and they rotate more rapidly."
Wikipedia

The explanation of the planets and asteroid belt pulling back and counterbalancing the pull of the sun is weak. If this was so then every object with gravitational pull behind our line of orbit would eventually slow our orbit.


The truth is that God keeps the Earth in orbit--just like He also made it perfectly geometrical (not a perfect sphere, but perfectly radial)--and if it was not so centrifugal force in the spin would knock us out of orbit.

#271 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2009 - 12:40 PM

Like this:  Yellow Stone

View Post


Thanks for the blind link, should I respond by also just posting blind links or should both of us put the effort into a post instead of just the one?

#272 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2009 - 05:14 PM

Distance has little to do with the greenhouse effect that would occur.  Creationists had to leave the vapor canopy model behind because the greenhouse effect with a vapor canopy over the earth would cause  the temp to rise to over 600 degrees F at the lowest, according to computer models.


Distance certainly has something to do with greenhouse effects, the further away you are from the sun the less of the sun's energy is going to reach you in order to produce a greenhouse effect.

We have less than 1% CO2 in the atmosphere now and we are concerned about global warming.  The standard geo volcanically caused atmosphere has very high levels of CO2 along with WATER VAPOR.  Even if the first alleged ocean was very low, steam takes 1700 times the volume of liquid water, so there was alot of vapor hypothetically.  The heat would have never allowed the H20 vapor to condense. 


Not only that with the extreme heat, what chemical reactions would have results with N and methane in the atmosphere?


A thick atmosphere with the composition put forward for the early earth would also reflect energy from the sun away from earth so once the crust cooled down below the boiling point of water I don't see why the atmosphere should have stayed too hot for water to condense.

It's also interesting to note that the standard explanation for earth's early atmosphere is consistent with both geological evidence and biological evidence for the first forms of life. Earth's early atmosphere was composed of lots of gases released from volcanoes and nitrogen. It wasn't until the first cyanobacteria developed that oxygen began to be released into the atmosphere where it gradually built up to today's levels. This is supported by geological formations such as banded iron formations.

Posted Image

Posted Image

What was the original "center of gravity" in the beginning stages of our planet? The larger objects have more gravity.  How do you get a small object to begin to pull objects into it?  We should be able to see this happening in the asteroid belt.  Newtonian physics (and I'm not a physicist, but I know enough to know this) would predict bumping and bouncing if two objects collide in space--this is exactly what happens in the asteroid belt.


Everything that has mass has gravity. The solar system probably began as a nebula of dust and gas, unless each dust particle was the same mass and distance away from each other they would, very slowly, begin to attract each other. Eventually a small clump formed, as more material was attracted it gained mass and thus had a stronger gravitational pull. Just like water going down a drain this began to pull surrounding material into a spiral formation. As the solar system began to take shape heavier elements were pulled more towards the center to eventually become the inner planets while the less dense gases remained somewhat more distant and became the outer planets. The asteroid belt is the "leftovers" of this process.

It seems like you're saying that gravity isn't a function of an object's mass here which is reeeaaaalllllyyyyy scary. Why do you suppose the moon orbits earth instead of the other way around?

You could probably ask the astrophysicists who postulate migration of the new planets they are discovering around stars.  A few of them are larger than Jupiter, as close in their orbit as Mercury and have elliptical orbits of days or weeks (one has 8 days). 

Funny that they can migrate in, but to ask why that wouldn't happen to us is considered out of the question by staus quo science.  It's too inconvenient to consider.


Ahhhh, you mean elliptical orbits. "Migrating" smacks of Velikovsky which always makes me nervous I might develop eye diabetes reading posts about inner and outer planets roaming around willy-nilly. True, many extra-solar system planets have been shown to have extreme elliptical orbits. . .but then one should remember that all planets have elliptical orbits, some are just more elliptical that others. That being said, we have found extra-solar systems with relatively mild-elliptical orbits similar in shape to our own solar system. You can take a look at our solar system and extra-solar systems here.

The sun did not determine the momentum of the earth.  Our satellites must be continually adjusted in orbit, because gravity causes drag and gradually slows the satellite.  In the standard model there is no explanation for a physical mechanism that would keep the earth in orbit  4.6 b revolutions.


Actually to my knowledge only geostationary satellites (those that "appear" to remain in the same position all the time) need to have their orbits adjusted. And even then this is due to the earth not being perfectly round which requires the satellites to be re-aligned every two weeks.

geostationary orbit:
Posted Image

regular orbit
Posted Image

Of course even regular orbiting satellites need to be adjusted from time to time. Orbital velocity is the speed a satellite needs to achieve in order to maintain it's distance from the earth and this depends largely on the satellites altitude. Usually we like to keep those satellites pretty close so that they orbit the earth faster and thus we can cover a larger area with them which means that their orbits will degrade faster. The earth, by comparison, is really far away from the sun so our orbit is degrading reallllllly slow. Eventually we would crash into the sun. . .but it will probably run out of fuel and go supernova before then in which case the effect would be, from our point of view, the same.

The explanation of the planets and asteroid belt pulling back and counterbalancing the pull of the sun is weak.  If this was so then every object with gravitational pull behind our line of orbit would eventually slow our orbit.

The truth is that God keeps the Earth in orbit--just like He also made it perfectly geometrical (not a perfect sphere, but perfectly radial)--and if it was not so centrifugal force in the spin would knock us out of orbit.

View Post


None of this makes any sense. The earth's orbit is maintained by it's velocity which is perpetuated by inertia. Why on earth would God need to intervene into the orbit of every object in the universe? Jupiter has over sixty objects orbiting it. . .does God need to hold up each one? Wouldn't it be simpler to just set up a universe governed by laws like inertia? Kind of like our is?

#273 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:32 PM

Thanks for the blind link, should I respond by also just posting blind links or should both of us put the effort into a post instead of just the one?

View Post

What? Blind link? Not!

The link is valid and it answers your questions about the Yellow Stone petrified forests. Maybe you should click the link, read it and learn something.

#274 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:39 PM

What?  Blind link?  Not!

The link is valid and it answers your questions about the Yellow Stone petrified forests.  Maybe you should click the link, read it and learn something.

View Post

Yeah, but Instructorus Rex 'knows' that nothing credible comes out of creationist organizations, so he's going to continue to pretend that his questions aren't answered. After all, the answers aren't worth contemplating because they come from the wrong sources. So Instructorus has no interest in be instructorated. :)

The fact that he pretends that there are no answers to his questions...

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=39528

...is proof enough that he's a time waster.

#275 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:16 PM

What?  Blind link?  Not!

The link is valid and it answers your questions about the Yellow Stone petrified forests.  Maybe you should click the link, read it and learn something.

View Post


A "blind link" is a post that contains only a link with no supporting description or summary of the pertinent points. If you check out the forum rules you'll notice these things are generally frowned upon in online forums.

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page.
http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm



#276 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:29 PM

Yeah, but Instructorus Rex 'knows' that nothing credible comes out of creationist organizations, so he's going to continue to pretend that his questions aren't answered. After all, the answers aren't worth contemplating because they come from the wrong sources. So Instructorus has no interest in be instructorated.  :)

The fact that he pretends that there are no answers to his questions...

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=39528

...is proof enough that he's a time waster.

View Post


I don't recall ignoring any of the sources you've used because of where they come from though I admittedly don't do videos that are excessively long (>5 minutes). What I also don't do are blind links; supporting links are all fine and good but they should be just that supporting links, not arguments unto themselves.

#277 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:44 AM

You're right. Performedge should elaborate why that link is important and I would ask him to do so to comply with the rules.

Instructorus, I have noticed that your questions imply that you have not found answers for your questions so I ask again. How long have you been debating this issue so we can determine if you are a time waster?

#278 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:12 AM

Instructorus, I have noticed that your questions imply that you have not found answers for your questions so I ask again. How long have you been debating this issue so we can determine if you are a time waster?

View Post


You'll note that my OP on the Yellowstone fossil forests doesn't just show a picture but contains two quotes from extremely reputable sources which note, among other things, the presence of multiple layers of volcanic material entirely consistent with the standard geology explanation of this formation and inconsistent with a global flood and the presence of tree stumps that are

". . .rooted in a fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone that shows no petrographic evidence of being deposited by current action; in fact, most sandstones have textures resembling immature soils. . .the episodic nature of mudflow sedimentation indicates that these stacked clusters are likely remnants of successive forests with enough time between them to allow for incipient soil development."
http://geology.geosc...stract/12/3/159

I've seen explanations that attempt to explain these fossil forests as products of the flood but no model as of yet presented has been able to explain the presence of stacked forests, the presence of layers of volcanic material corresponding to each forests' demise, and the characteristics of the forest soils themselves.

I see absolutely zero relevance in how long I've been debating these issues. . .perhaps you could elaborate on this "time waster" connotation of yours.

#279 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 September 2009 - 06:02 PM

Continuing on, I'm wondering how YE geology explains the fossils forests of Yellow Stone National Park? 

Posted Image

"That is to say, after the first forest grew and was entombed, there was a time without volcanic outburst—a period long enough to permit a second forest to grow above the first. This in turn was covered by volcanic material and preserved, to be followed again by a period of quiet, and these more or less regular alternations of volcanism and forest growth continued throughout the time the beds were in process of formation."

http://www.nps.gov/h...owlton/sec1.htm

"Evidence from stratigraphic relationships and petrographic analyses indicates that most upright tree stumps at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park were buried in place. These stumps are commonly rooted in a fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone that shows no petrographic evidence of being deposited by current action; in fact, most sandstones have textures resembling immature soils. Conglomerates that overlie these root-zone sandstones flow around and bury the vertical trunks. Trees were apparently killed in place by either mudflows or rising lake waters, giving rise to discontinuous, localized clusters of preserved trees in a given stratigraphic interval. However, the episodic nature of mudflow sedimentation indicates that these stacked clusters are likely remnants of successive forests with enough time between them to allow for incipient soil development."
http://geology.geosc...stract/12/3/159

This is a  beautiful illustration of modern geology incorporating both gradual and rapid process' - each fossil forest represents a period of calm during which an entire forest gradually developed only to be successively obliterated and buried by volcanic fallout.  Each of these catastrophic events was then followed by another period of calm during which another forest grew. 

How would YE geology explain this formation?

View Post


Yes, this is one of the first things I was impressed by when I went to a creation seminar 20 years ago. I can't remember the geologist's name for sure--it might be Dr. Steven Austin. I just remember him saying he was a PhD from Harvard and had been a uniformintarian until 10 years prior that day.

Anyway, he had a multi screen slide presentation of the research he was then doing at Yellow Stone AND Mt. St. Helens.

When St. Helens blew up, a multitude of bare logs covered Spirit Lake. As they began to water log they began to sink--some of them UPRIGHT--- because the thickest end was heavier. They had slides that showed where they scuba dived. The weird thing was that some were still floating on top, some had gone all the way to the bottom and some were floating upright at different levels in the water. God is my witness I saw this 20 years ago.

Then he had pictures of his research at Yellowstone. He was able to dig some the stumps up and photographed the bottoms--some of them had NO ROOTS--just like the ones at St. Helens.

Ken Ham-- But Dr Austin went on to explain something even more astounding. Many of the logs showed a strong tendency to float upright. Over the first 10 years after the eruption, about half of the original logs which floated in the lake sank to the floor of the lake. When Dr Austin and other scientists used sonar and scuba to examine the bottom of the lake, they found that about 10 per cent of the deposited logs were in upright position—looking like an underwater forest!

The sonar indicated tens of thousands of upright logs. Many of these logs still had roots attached to them.


Some of the logs were solidly buried with three feet of sediment around their bases. Others had no sediment around theirs. Thus, the upright trees were at different levels, because they were deposited at different times.

If Spirit Lake could be drained, it would look like forests of trees which had grown at different levels and at different times—perhaps over thousands of years. Dr Austin went on to explain that this has helped scientists reinterpret the ‘fossil forests’ of Yellowstone National Park.

At a place called Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone, there are petrified upright trees, at many different levels. These have been interpreted as representing many different forests, growing successively on the same place over long periods of time. This is supposedly one of the best evidences evolutionists use to ‘prove’ long time periods for the earth’s history. However, it is now possible to explain this same evidence in terms of a similar event to that at Mount St Helens—a catastrophic event that enables scientists to reinterpret the evidence at Yellowstone as having formed within a short time.
Look here

#280 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:43 PM

I see absolutely zero relevance in how long I've been debating these issues. . .perhaps you could elaborate on this "time waster" connotation of yours.

View Post

People who exhibit no retention for information and belabor points by forgetting the information they've already learned to simply force people to restate what they were already told to satisfaction, once or repeatedly, are ejected as time wasters.

If you've been debating this issue for any length of time and you don't understand what a creationist would say is unique about the petrified forests (positions, root conditions, parallel contemporary occurrences, etc...) and say that you have no knowledge of creationist evidence, chances are you are here as a time waster.

How you respond to AFJ will give us a good clue to see if our suspicions are correct. We want honest civil dialogues. If you have a reoccurring case of amnesia to rehash points that have already been produced then you'll find yourself ejected.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users