Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


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

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:28 AM

You missed the whole point of the message.  I don't recommend using regular Wiki or Creationwiki as a primary source for scientific information because they both are subject to non-neutral entries from their biased editors.

View Post

I think you miss the point. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We are all grown ups and we can be objective. Instead of quibbling over sources maybe we should use our God given ability to think, be logical and be honest to view origins issues.

There are some great researchers who have done an outstanding job in the realm of educating Christians on origins matters.

I can admit my bias. Can you admit yours? You have a set of presuppositions that color how you interpret things. I'll gladly lay my assumptions on the table. If you put yours on the table, we can have a robust dialogue without having to get overly concerned about sources.

#22 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 02:39 PM

That's a most remarkable claim. Can you please provide a reference to the scientific data on this phenomenon? To me all that photo shows is superficial weathering and cracking on the exposed vertical surface of the shale, with more erosive debris infilling from the above sandstone. Do you have any evidence that such infilled cracks extend to any substantial depth horizontally back into the unexposed part of the formations?


Still living in denial...eh?

The issue is erosion between the layers.

Posted Image

"What does this contact represent? Is it an unconformity? [that is, did a different layer than the Coconino get scraped off cleanly prior to the Coconino getting deposited?] Geologists have long pondered this classic locality.

Most geologists have recognized the extraordinarily flat surface to be free of any channel erosion. Furthermore, pebbles of lithified Hermit siltstone are not known, from the base of the Coconino. No soil-or-weathering profile is known at the top of the Hermit Formation. Instead, the Hermit Formation contains elongated cracks (clastic dikes) filled with white Coconino Sandstone at the uppermost surface. It would appear that the uppermost Hermit was not lithified when deposition of the Coconino began. Concerning the contact, Shelton writes, "... there is no evidence of prolonged weathering or extensive erosion ..."(J.S. Shelton, Geology Illustrated, (San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 1966, p. 283)

Interest in the Coconino-Hermit contact has been increased recently, by discovery of a thick formation between the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation in central and eastern Arizona. This formation, the Schnebly Hill Formation, is composed of sandstone, shale, and limestone, which approaches a thickness of 2000 feet beneath Holbrook, Arizona. Evolutionists who adopt the unformitarian assumption of slow sedimentation, might suggest more than ten million years to deposit the Schnebly Hill Formation. Therefore, evolutionists would be inclined to insert a significant paraconformity between the Coconino Sandstone and the underlying Hermit Formation. ... Is there significant physical evidence of subaerial erosion (channeling, residual soil, weathering, etc.) at the contact? No, it is just uniformitarian theory that would like to place millions of years between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation." (Austin, Stephen A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, 1994, p. 49)

Now where is at least 10 million years of erosion between those layers that are perfectly flat for the entire 270 mile length of the Grand Canyon?




Enjoy.

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 02:48 PM

And Creationwiki is a neutral source of scientific info?


Neutral or not,they are consistently more reliable.I've never seen them grind an apes pelvis until it fits together like a humans nor have they ever called fosslized cologen fibers a feathered dinosaur.




Thanks.

#24 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 02:58 PM

I think you miss the point. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We are all grown ups and we can be objective. Instead of quibbling over sources maybe we should use our God given ability to think, be logical and be honest to view origins issues.

I strongly disagree. The raw empirical data is completely neutral. Anyone (YE or OE) can count tree rings or varve layers and get the same results. Anyone can do radioisotopic measurements on basalt and record the numbers. Anyone can do material strength tests on various materials and write down the results.

Let me clarify one thing. I did not come here to argue for an old Earth. I came here to get explanations for various empirically observed phenomena from the young earth perspective, explanations that I have been unable to find in searching the YE literature.

As I mentioned earlier, geology is an amateur hobby of mine. Like all inquisitive science nerds, I like to understand how things came to be. I have read quite a bit on mainstream geology, and have also read YE sources like ICR, AIG, Walt Brown, the RATE project, etc. What I have found pretty much without exception is that the OE folks can provide detailed, specific mechanisms for things, and in most cases provide multiple independent lines of evidence that point to their OE conclusion. The YEs, however, only ever argue that the OE interpretations are wrong and never offer up their own details specific mechanisms. YEs also are notorious for ignoring the multiple independent lines of evidence. They will provide one ad hoc argument one at a time against each OE interpretation and never bother to consolidate all of their rebuttals into one coherent picture beyond "the Flood did it". Many times the YE ad hoc arguments will directly contradict one another.

Here is another case in point: Incised meandering rivers. This is Goosenecks state park in Utah. The river makes three complete 180 deg. switchbacks and travels more than five total miles in less than one linear mile.

Posted Image

The OE explanation is that the original layers were laid down as sediment over a span of a billion years, and eventually hardened to rock. About 20 million years, a meandering river began flowing across the relatively flat top of the layers. As plate tectonics lifted the layers in elevation, the river slowly carved vertically walled canyons along the original meandering path.

The YEs say the sediment was all laid and the river carved in the soft mud by Flood run off in one year.

Then we look at the empirical data. Not interpretations, just pure empirically verifiable facts.

1. Meandering rivers only form at slow flow speeds. If the water is flowing too fast, you get straight cut channels. Evidence of this can be seen in the channels carved from the catastrophic ice-dam floods of the lake Missoula scablands.

2. To remove the volume of soil in one year necessary for the YE view, the flow would have to be orders of magnitude too fast to produce meanders.

3. Soft mud does not have the mechanical strength to support vertical walls, over a half mile high at some places in this case. Mud in a vertical orientation would slump under its own weight. Again, this is not interpretation but an empirically verifiable fact.

4. The layers of the canyon are occasionally interspersed with basaltic rock which allows radiometric dating. Without exception, the dating always shows the a top to bottom, youngest to oldest progression. If the layers were all laid in the same year, they should all show the same radiometric age even if that absolute age was wrong.

To top it off, examples of these incised meandering rivers are even found carved through solid basalt, which for the uninformed is solidified lava.

Columbia River basalts

Posted Image
Posted Image

I'd love for someone to explain to me how a meandering, vertically incised river can be cut through molten lava.

So there's my dilemma. I'm open to new interpretations, but I need the YEs to provide a consistent, consilient one that I have been unable to locate myself.

#25 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 03:53 PM

That's a most remarkable claim. Can you please provide a reference to the scientific data on this phenomenon? To me all that photo shows is superficial weathering and cracking on the exposed vertical surface of the shale, with more erosive debris infilling from the above sandstone. Do you have any evidence that such infilled cracks extend to any substantial depth horizontally back into the unexposed part of the formations?


Still living in denial...eh?

The issue is erosion between the layers.

Posted Image

"What does this contact represent? Is it an unconformity? [that is, did a different layer than the Coconino get scraped off cleanly prior to the Coconino getting deposited?] Geologists have long pondered this classic locality.

Most geologists have recognized the extraordinarily flat surface to be free of any channel erosion. Furthermore, pebbles of lithified Hermit siltstone are not known, from the base of the Coconino. No soil-or-weathering profile is known at the top of the Hermit Formation. Instead, the Hermit Formation contains elongated cracks (clastic dikes) filled with white Coconino Sandstone at the uppermost surface. It would appear that the uppermost Hermit was not lithified when deposition of the Coconino began. Concerning the contact, Shelton writes, "... there is no evidence of prolonged weathering or extensive erosion ..."(J.S. Shelton, Geology Illustrated, (San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 1966, p. 283)

Interest in the Coconino-Hermit contact has been increased recently, by discovery of a thick formation between the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation in central and eastern Arizona. This formation, the Schnebly Hill Formation, is composed of sandstone, shale, and limestone, which approaches a thickness of 2000 feet beneath Holbrook, Arizona. Evolutionists who adopt the unformitarian assumption of slow sedimentation, might suggest more than ten million years to deposit the Schnebly Hill Formation. Therefore, evolutionists would be inclined to insert a significant paraconformity between the Coconino Sandstone and the underlying Hermit Formation. ... Is there significant physical evidence of subaerial erosion (channeling, residual soil, weathering, etc.) at the contact? No, it is just uniformitarian theory that would like to place millions of years between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation." (Austin, Stephen A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, 1994, p. 49)

Now where is at least 10 million years of erosion between those layers that are perfectly flat for the entire 270 mile length of the Grand Canyon?


From the US Forest service

The Schnebly Hill Formation plays a leading role in the Sedona area, making up most of the spectacular red rock cliffs, including Bell Rock, Courthouse Rock, Cathedral Rock, and Coffee Pot Rock.  All of the bright orange sandstone in Oak Creek Canyon is also part of the Schnebly Hill Formation.

The Schnebly Hill Formation has been divided into four members in the Sedona area, from youngest to oldest:

    * Sycamore Pass Member - up to 700 feet of red to orange sandstone containing high-angle cross-beds
    * Ft. Apache Member -  a limestone, dolomite, and siltstone unit, 8 to 10 feet thick at the top of Bell Rock, over 100 feet thick to the southeast near Ft. Apache
    * Bell Rock Member - over 500 feet of flat-bedded, ripple-marked sandstone and siltstone, slightly darker in color than the Rancho Rojo
    * Rancho Rojo Member - 20 to 40 feet of orange sandstones containing low-angle cross-beds

The Schnebly Hill Formation is separated from the underlying Hermit Formation by an unconformity representing less than one million years of erosion or non-deposition.  While the Hermit Formation was being deposited, the Sedona area was an arid floodplain surrounding river channels draining the Ancestral Rocky Mountains.

Less the one million years later, the Pedregosa Sea had encroached upon Sedona and sand was blown into the sea from the nearby desert to form submarine sand dunes of the Rancho Rojo Member.

As the sea retreated, Sedona emerged from the sea as a tidal flat.  Still, sand was blown out of the desert to the north into the Sedona area.  The sand was reworked by the tides and deposited as the flat-bedded Bell Rock Member.  Near Bell Rock, over 500 feet of sand accumulated before the sea advanced over the tidal flat for one last brief period, during which 8 to 10 feet of limestone, dolomite, and siltstone were deposited in the Sedona area.  About 272 million years later, the limestone, dolomite, and siltstone would be called the Ft. Apache Member.

Near Ft. Apache, southeast of Sedona, the Ft. Apache Member is over 100 feet thick, indicating that the Pedregosa Sea had advanced from the southeast.

Soon, the sea receded for good, and the dunes advanced into the area.  By 270 million years ago, near the middle of the Permian period, Sedona was entirely covered by sand dunes of the Sycamore Pass Member.

source


As seen in this diagram from the USGS, the Schnebly Formation does not extend all the way to the exposed edge of the Grand canyon. There is a small (<1 MY) unconformity in the Sedona AZ area, but none at the Coconino/Hermit Shale boundary in the GC proper. Austin's claim of a mysterious 10 MYO unconformity with no erosion traces is pure BS.

Posted Image

BTW, the Schnebly Formation is not "recently discovered" as mischaracterized by Austin but has been known to geologists for over a hundred years. The formation is named after one of the early non-native pioneers to first settle in that part of Arizona.

Do you ever do anything besides C&P these bogus "facts" from YEC apologetics websites? Do you ever research any of the primary geologic literature yourself?

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 04:19 PM

2. To remove the volume of soil in one year necessary for the YE view, the flow would have to be orders of magnitude too fast to produce meanders.

View Post

I'm going to focus on this one statement for a moment if you don't mind. Why in the YEC view does that volume of soil have to be removed in one year?

#27 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 04:31 PM

I'm going to focus on this one statement for a moment if you don't mind. Why in the YEC view does that volume of soil have to be removed in one year?

Because the YE views I've read say the whole thing was caused by Flood run off, and the entire Flood including the waters receding is said to have lasted one year.

If you have some other source that says it took longer I'll be glad to consider it.

BTW, you are doing the exact thing I just pointed out, trying to ad hoc explain away each bit of evidence separately instead of considering all the evidence as a whole. That is the problem! :(

Let me know when you get to the explanation for the incised meanders carved in molten lava. ;)

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 04:48 PM

BTW, you are doing the exact thing I just pointed out, trying to ad hoc explain away each bit of evidence separately instead of considering all the evidence as a whole. That is the problem!    ;)

View Post

No I'm not. If you want to learn why I brought that up, take some time to consider why I find your one year constraint important, which as a big constraint if necessary, and a huge variable if it's not, agreed?

Because the YE views I've read say the whole thing was caused by Flood run off, and the entire Flood including the waters receding is said to have lasted one year.

If you have some other source that says it took longer I'll be glad to consider it.

View Post

Have you ever visited the Lake Erie Canyon on the Canada/USA border? It's one of the most spectacular and unique post flood features this planet has.

#29 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:30 PM

No I'm not. If you want to learn why I brought that up, take some time to consider why I find your one year constraint important, which as a big constraint if necessary, and a huge variable if it's not, agreed?

OK, tell me how long it took to carve the Gooseneck incised meanders, and how you determined that time. Don't forget to tell me where the water came from to carve the channels that deep either if not from Flood runoff. If you are going to claim some residual Flood water trapped in a dammed up lake area somewhere, be sure to provide evidence for the lake and the dam.

Oh, there are incised meanders all over the planet, so we'll need the evidence for a residual lake with dam for all those too.

Don't forget about the incised meanders cut into solid basalt.

Have at it.

Have you ever visited the Lake Erie Canyon on the Canada/USA border? It's one of the most spectacular and unique post flood features this planet has.

Was the Lake Erie Canyon a newly cut incised meander? If not, then it has no pertinence to the current discussion.

#30 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:33 PM

Before I offer my perspective please acknowledge that the one year necessity for feature generation is indeed a bogus constraint.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:37 PM

Was the Lake Erie Canyon a newly cut incised meander?  If not, then it has no pertinence to the current discussion.

View Post

I don't know. It doesn't exist yet. My point is that Lake Erie given enough time will generate a new post flood canyon 4500 years in the making as soon as Niagara Falls recedes back to the lake.

I'm trying to make it perfectly clear that your ability to understand the YEC position will require your admission when bad concepts are coloring your interpretation, even if some YEC that doesn't know what they were talking about offered it or you misunderstood. I'm not trying to be rude. You did say you were here to learn and so am I.

#32 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 06:06 PM

Before I offer my perspective please acknowledge that the one year necessity for feature generation is indeed a bogus constraint.

Fine, make it any length of time you want. Just be aware that if you remove the one year/Flood run-off constraint you have to give yourself new constraints, like where did the water come from. Are you willing to acknowledge that?

I don't know. It doesn't exist yet. My point is that Lake Erie given enough time will generate a new post flood canyon 4500 years in the making as soon as Niagara Falls recedes back to the lake.

If you don't know if it will generate an incised meander, then it's not pertinent. An incised meander in geology has a very specific meaning, and that's what I'm asking questions about here.

I'm trying to make it perfectly clear that your ability to understand the YEC position will require your admission when bad concepts are coloring your interpretation, even if some YEC that doesn't know what they were talking about offered it or you misunderstood.

What bad concepts? I'm simply telling you what most YE literature I've read has told me. Again, if you have some other source that says something different, I'm open to reading it. Just be prepared to tell me why I should accept the new info over what other YE sources have said.

How do I tell if I meet a YE who doesn't know what he is talking about?

I'm not trying to be rude. You did say you were here to learn and so am I.

You don't come across as rude at all, and I hope I don't either. :( I enjoy and appreciate the chance to calmly swap ideas and ask questions about things that interest me.

BTW, what's with this 5 minute board "flood control" limit? Makes it awkward to carry on a near-real-time conversation? ;)

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 06:28 PM

I think the Canyon at Goosenecks State Park is a fascinating and mysterious feature. I don't think anyone can be certain how the forces acted on it to give it it's present state. I wish I had an elevation map of the area. Could anyone help me locate a good topographic map of Utah?

I made this picture from Google earth and I see some attributes about that canyon that a slow moving meandering river would not be sufficient to explain.

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon.jpg   143.7KB   79 downloads

The features circled in red look like rapid run off areas.

The canyon walls which I highlighted with purple... how would a slow river form those feature?

Last and this is the one that has a slow meandering river not very convincing to me. Look at the area that I circled in green. Why did the river meander around the bend to the lower left of where I circled? Why didn't it cut straight through? It's obvious where I circled is much lower then the peak that is actually meandered around.

These problems are all in addition to the fact that steep walls aren't a logical result of slow meandering rivers cutting away for millions of years. The erosion patterns are not conducive to such a hypothesis.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 06:36 PM

If you don't know if it will generate an incised meander, then it's not pertinent.  An incised meander in geology has a very specific meaning, and that's what I'm asking questions about here.

View Post

I feel like we've met before.

Please keep in mind that I'm addressing the "one year only" for features assumption that you offered and the fact that earth is still settling from the flood.

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 06:44 PM

How do I tell if I meet a YE who doesn't know what he is talking about?

View Post

How do we know anything? ;)

I guess it would be the nature of their ideas and arguments. I'm not into people judging. I'm into idea discerning and honesty detecting.

#36 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 07:08 PM

I think the Canyon at Goosenecks State Park is a fascinating and mysterious feature. I don't think anyone can be certain how the forces acted on it to give it it's present state. I wish I had an elevation map of the area. Could anyone help me locate a good topographic map of Utah?

Ask and ye shall receive ;)

Area maps plus detailed descriptions of the local geologic formations. Enjoy!

Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado (pdf)

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 07:09 PM

I took another picture. Obviously I'm not sure of how accurate Google Earth is at displaying the height of features but this should still give us a rough idea of the above mentioned problem:

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon_02.jpg   138.6KB   32 downloads

The area circled in green is the exact same location that I circled in green a couple of posts ago. What kind of water movement and geological activity makes a river meander around a hill when it could just go through a valley?

#38 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 07:40 PM

Ask and ye shall receive ;)

Area maps plus detailed descriptions of the local geologic formations.  Enjoy!

Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado (pdf)

View Post

Thanks for the file but I didn't see a map that was particularly useful. I guess I'm looking to discern the location of a post flood lake. I know Walt Brown has identified a couple of lakes for the Grand Canyon:

Posted Image

Utah is known for it's dried lake beds but features like the Bonneville Salt flats are in a different area of the state. I'm going to look into it a little further but my initial question is; Is it possible that there is the proper topography to allow a location for a reservoir.

#39 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:14 PM

I took another picture. Obviously I'm not sure of how accurate Google Earth is at displaying the height of features but this should still give us a rough idea of the above mentioned problem:

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon_02.jpg   138.6KB   32 downloads

The area circled in green is the exact same location that I circled in green a couple of posts ago. What kind of water movement and geological activity makes a river meander around a hill when it could just go through a valley?

View Post

Those types of U-turn formations are called oxbows, and they form from by a meandering river eroding its outer banks slowly over time

Posted Image

Eventually that thin neck will break through, creating an oxbow lake

Posted Image

More on meander formation

The physics of meander formation is well understood

meander mechanics

..which is why we know they can't form quickly, in fast flowing streams.

Incised meanders (also called entrenched meanders) form when the original meander cuts into material solid enough (i.e. rock, basalt) to resist the outward energy imparted by the water flow, in which case the energy is diverted down as friction to deepen the channel. That's why we know meanders can't incise in soft mud - they need a hard surface to resist the lateral energy.

still more on meander formation

Enjoy!

#40 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:19 PM

Here is another case in point:  Incised meandering rivers.  This is Goosenecks state park in Utah.  The river makes three complete 180 deg. switchbacks and travels more than five total miles in less than one linear mile.

Posted Image

The OE explanation is that the original layers were laid down as sediment over a span of a billion years, and eventually hardened to rock.  About 20 million years, a meandering river began flowing across the relatively flat top of the layers.  As plate tectonics lifted the layers in elevation, the river slowly carved vertically walled canyons along the original meandering path.

The YEs say the sediment was all laid and the river carved in the soft mud by Flood run off in one year.

View Post

Source?

I have seen no such claims from creationists at large or creation scientists.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users