Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


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

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:24 PM

And Creationwiki is a neutral source of scientific info?   ;)

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.

For the same reason I won't use TalkOrigins or AIG or ICR as a primary source.  I stated clearly I prefer to reference the actual research papers with the raw data wherever possible.

Can you think of a better way to stay intellectually honest and eliminate the bias from both sides?

View Post


I totally agree with you assist24, because the raw data is truly what counts, and thats why I look for the original fossil dig sites. The actual places where paleontologist find their specimens, and it's that part of the documentation that will eventually lead to the recovery of truth.

Unfortunately no matter who uncovers the truth, they will be biased. I have never met an unbiased person in my life.

Oh, and one more thing, it is that tiny bias part of each person that makes them unique, and who they are.

#42 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 - 08:29 PM

Does anyone beside me not find an answer to why the river did not cut the loop off when it could have in that disproportionately low area when it could have if the idea is true that it meandered along at those higher elevations for millions of years?

#43 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:33 PM

Does anyone beside me not find an answer to why the river did not cut the loop off when it could have in that disproportionately low area when it could have if the idea is true that it meandered along at those higher elevations for millions of years?

View Post


I think you hit the nail on the head Adam, I really think you've solved the problem for this geological problem. It seems to be more of a logical problem than a geological problem if you know what I mean.

#44 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:47 PM

Does anyone beside me not find an answer to why the river did not cut the loop off when it could have in that disproportionately low area when it could have if the idea is true that it meandered along at those higher elevations for millions of years?


The river didn't cut through earlier in its history because the original oxbow became incised in its channel before it could achieve a cut-through. Once incised, moving the river laterally through erosion of the hard rock walls became extremely difficult. Over the last few million years the river has basically cut straight down with almost no lateral movement, which is why the vertical walled canyons look like they do. The oxbow may cut through eventually, but right now virtually all of the erosional force of the river is still downward.

#45 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 - 08:59 PM

The river didn't cut through earlier in its history because the original oxbow became incised in its channel before it could achieve a cut-through.

View Post

You have got to be kidding me. Are you looking at the same Canyon and noted feature that the rest of us are looking at?

#46 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 - 09:04 PM

Hi assist24,

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.


Do you have any experimental data to support any of that?

Here is a thick wall of soft sediment deposited by Mt. St. Helens that did'nt collapse.

Posted Image

And here is the meandering canyon the eruption produced through the soft sediment.

Posted Image

And yes,without exception the newly formed lava was dated with radiometric dating and it gave an age between 200kya-2.3mya.





Enjoy.

#47 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 09:05 PM

Does anyone beside me not find an answer to why the river did not cut the loop off when it could have in that disproportionately low area when it could have if the idea is true that it meandered along at those higher elevations for millions of years?

View Post

;) Shame on you, Adam. You're not supposed to think.

#48 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 - 09:07 PM

;)  Shame on you, Adam. You're not supposed to think.

View Post

It's just a bad habit, I guess. :(

#49 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 09:30 PM

Well, keep it up, and you'll figure out that the interior of giant cakes of mud is an ideal place for such meanders to form.

Surface down models don't seem to work no matter what.

#50 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 10:10 PM

Here is a thick wall of soft sediment deposited by Mt. St. Helens that did'nt collapse.

Posted Image


No, that is dry volcanic ash, not water laid wet sediment as posited by the YE in the GC layers. Try adding enough water to make it a wet slurry and see how high you can vertically stack it.

And here is the meandering canyon the eruption produced through the soft sediment.

Posted Image


That is not an incised meander, it is just a regular flow meandering through loose unconsolidated ash, not water laid sediment.

You seem to be lacking even a most basic understanding of geology. I can answer questions for you if you'd like.

Do you want to take a shot at explaining how incised meandering river channels were cut through molten lava?

#51 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 - 10:34 PM

No, that is dry volcanic ash, not water laid wet sediment as posited by the YE in the GC layers. Try adding enough water to make it a wet slurry and see how high you can vertically stack it.


Thats worse than ad hoc.Now your suggesting that the lahar cut through it in a matter of hours and it did'nt even get wet...OK.

Limestone,Sandstone,and Shale are much denser than volcanic ash so ofcourse we could stack them much thicker.

That is not an incised meander, it is just a regular flow meandering through loose unconsolidated ash, not water laid sediment.


Exactly what you said was'nt possible in a previous post.

1. Meandering rivers only form at slow flow speeds. If the water is flowing too fast, you get straight cut channels.


;)

#52 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 - 10:50 PM

Do you want to take a shot at explaining how incised meandering river channels were cut through molten lava?


Are concrete and asphalt acceptible substitutes for lava?

Posted Image





Thanks.

#53 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 11:14 PM

Thats worse than ad hoc.Now your suggesting that the lahar cut through it in a matter of hours and it did'nt even get wet...OK.

I didn't say it didn't get wet. If you are going to dishonestly attribute to me things I never said this conversation is going to end quickly. :angry:

The water in channels carved by the Spirit Lake overflow only had time to superficially soak a few feet into the sides of the dry ash. The parts that did get sufficiently soaked collapsed - look at the bottom of your own photo.

Limestone,Sandstone,and Shale are much denser than volcanic ash so ofcourse we could stack them much thicker.

But according to YE the canyon layers weren't hardened, consolidated Limestone,Sandstone,and Shale yet. They were all underwater freshly laid fully saturated soft mud. You can't have it both ways

Exactly what you said was'nt possible in a previous post.

1. Meandering rivers only form at slow flow speeds. If the water is flowing too fast, you get straight cut channels.


:huh:

That's right, I said form. The lahars that caused the Spirit lake overflow for the most part followed the path of already existing slightly meandering streams and rivers, especially the Toutle. Most of the "canyon" pictures being touted on YE sites including yours are of the Toutle River and its tributaries, not a completely new cut meandering channel like is being posited for Goosenecks. Did you see any new oxbow meanders in the Mt. St. Helens runoff?

The entire mechanism of the Mt. St. Helens flows is completely different than the formation of the Goosenecks incised meanders - different materials, different water source, different results. Why are you even bringing it up, unless as a strawman diversionary tactic to shift attention from the Goosenecks example?

#54 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 14 March 2009 - 11:24 PM

Do you want to take a shot at explaining how incised meandering river channels were cut through molten lava?


Are concrete and asphalt acceptible substitutes for lava?

Posted Image

No, not even close.

What does a picture of a washed out bridge on an existing river have to do with the formation of incised meandering rivers found deeply cut into basalt?

#55 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 - 11:34 PM

I didn't say it didn't get wet. If you are going to dishonestly attribute to me things I never said this conversation is going to end quickly.


You said it is dry ash.Any jr. geologist worth a grain of salt can clearly see the stratification in the picture.stratification only forms in water,in this case a fluidized pyroclastic flow.

Pyroclastic flows are fluidized masses of rock fragments and gases that move rapidly in response to gravity. Pyroclastic flows can form in several different ways. They can form when an eruption column collapses, or as the result of gravitational collapse or explosion on a lava dome or lava flow (Francis, 1993 and Scott, 1989). These flows are more dense than pyroclastic surges and can contain as much as 80 % unconsolidated material. The flow is fluidized because it contains water and gas from the eruption, water vapor from melted snow and ice, and air from the flow overriding air as it moves downslope (Scott, 1989). The image on the right shows the formation of pyroclastic flows during a 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (photo courtesy of J.M. Vallance).


The stratification happened from heated water and steam that mixed with the ash flow.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.


So yes,your are wrong about it being dry ash.It was in fact wet when it formed and it was still wet when the canyon was carved through it.Sorry if that makes you upset,it should'nt.




Thanks.

#56 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 12:19 AM

You said it is dry ash.Any jr. geologist worth a grain of salt can clearly see the stratification in the picture.stratification only forms in water,in this case a fluidized pyroclastic flow.


You really don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about, do you?

During some volcanic eruptions a layer of ashes several feet in thickness is deposited over a considerable district, but such beds thin out rapidly as the distance from the crater increases, and ash deposits covering many square miles are usually very thin. The showers of ashes often follow one another after longer or shorter intervals, and hence thick masses of tuff, whether of subaerial or of marine origin, have mostly a stratified character. The coarsest materials or agglomerates show this least distinctly; in the fine beds it is often developed in great perfection.

source


The stratification happened from heated water and steam that mixed with the ash flow.


Bullcrap. That is a photo of airborne stratified ash. Here is another nice photo of Mt. St. Helens stratified ash from the USGS.

Posted Image

So yes,your are wrong about it being dry ash.It was in fact wet when it formed and it was still wet when the canyon was carved through it.Sorry if that makes you upset,it should'nt.


Clueless people trying to bluff their way through a discussion by desperately Googling terms they don't understand used to make me angry for wasting my time, but now I just laugh.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! :angry:

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2009 - 01:20 AM

I love it when some people, who did not witness anything, think they know it all and that everyone else should agree or be stupid.

Now for evidence to out do another. It has to be testable and retestable in a lab type situation to make a conslusion that would be better than anyone elses on this forum.

Now can either side do this? No? So by what standard do you imply that your conclusions are better than anyone elses here Assist24? Only that what you agree with is always right no matter what? That's not science.

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 04:55 AM

Perhaps if we had a source or two for the alleged "YEC Model(s)", we could see what kind of reasoning the alleged "YEC" author(s) employed to reach their conclusions.

#59 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 15 March 2009 - 06:16 AM

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.

View Post


Hi Assist,
Just wanted to welcome you here. I found the above comment a very accurate summary. I hope you can stay around. You seem to have an excellent background in geology (and better than mine). However, you will have to be very patient with people here. As you state, many of their arguments directly contradict each other but as far as I can tell, they either don't understand the basic logic or simply refuse to acknowledge this.

Many (most?) large basalt flows are "between" sedimentary layers. The huge Siberian flows are mostly buried, I have never heard much of an explanation of how you get these in a flood model. And then on top of these you get these meandering rivers cutting through this basalt. This doesn't logically fit with a flood. A few creationists then make an effort to talk about layers that were laid down pre-flood. But this contradicts other stories they are trying to tell. The self contradiction doesn't seem to phase them.

You commonly see arguments from the Mt. St. Helen's ash canyons. But again, the argument works against them. They don't see a difference between dry ash falls and benthic layers. Ash layers are found wedged in between many sedimentary layers and are not uncommon in drill cores in the midwest of the US. The ashfalls can also help preserve fossils and provide examples of some of our most detailed complete fossils (as in Ashfall fossil beds). However, they don't seem bothered that dry ashfalls like these are occuring in the middle of their flood.

In any case, good luck. It is probably best not to call anything "BS" here, even if it is quite obvious. I don't want to see you banned.

James

p.s. If I seem slow to respond to any replies to this, my apologies. I am currently wandering around Brazil and not sure when I will have contact. Of the tiny bit I have seen, it is a beautiful country, but the geology is not so interesting where I have been (Precambrian crystallan shield).

#60 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:10 AM

Perhaps if we had a source or two for the alleged "YEC Model(s)", we could see what kind of reasoning the alleged "YEC" author(s) employed to reach their conclusions.

EXACTLY! That is what I have been asking for, a detailed YE model for how the exhumed river channels, Goosenecks incised meanders, and Columbia gorge river meanders incised into basalt formed!

Heck, at this stage I'd settle for even an non-detailed model. Ever YE site I've seen say the geologic column layers exposed in the GC and Goosenecks were laid by the Flood. No one mentions the basalt incised meandering rivers. Most sites say the GC was carved by Flood run-off, although Dr. Steve Austin of ICR has hypothesizes a giant lake filled with Flood water to help in the process. Neither of those are useful in understanding the formation of exhumed meanders, basalt incised meanders, or the Goosenecks.

How about it CTD, can you please provide me with the YE model that explains those phenomena? Thanks!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users