Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


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

#81 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:54 AM

Is there some rule that all tributaries must form simultaneously? Well, maybe I shouldn't ask. I'm not about to take your word for very much, all things considered.

Then please give me what you think are the correct dates (with error tolerances) for when the San Juan river and the Goosenecks formed, and when the Colorado river and GC formed, and how you determined the dates.

I realize your knowledge of geology is virtually nonexistent, but just leaving it at "sometime after the Flood" isn't useful to anybody.

#82 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:05 AM

Let me get this straight, Assist24. If a geologist or a group of geologists make up an Ad Hoc hypothesis that ignores key pieces of data, we as Christians lose the debate by default because we don't believe the physical data alone can do as much talking as evolutionary geologists purport. We will gladly acknowledge that the Canyons by themselves are a limited record but broad detailed fairy tales are made up by agnostics. So to win we must be more active in our imaginations at making stuff up.

My key questions, about Goosenecks State Park that were brushed over and ignored prove that your theories are far from bullet proof.

#83 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:23 AM

Let me get this straight, Assist24. If a geologist or a group of geologists make up an Ad Hoc hypothesis that ignores key pieces of data, we as Christians lose the debate by default because we don't believe the physical data alone can do as much talking as evolutionary geologists purport. We will gladly acknowledge that the Canyons by themselves are a limited record but broad detailed fairy tales are made up by agnostics. So to win we must be more active in our imaginations at making stuff up.

My key questions, about Goosenecks State Park that were brushed over and ignored prove that your theories are far from bullet proof.

View Post

They're not my theories, I'm just the messenger trying to compare the explanations from both sides. My problem is no one will give me the YE explanations.

And the only "key question" you asked about the Goosenecks was why hadn't the oxbow broken through yet. I didn't "brush over and ignore" the question, I gave you a detailed answer based on all that modern geology knows about incised meander formation. The process was also presented in the geology links I provided.

My attempts at getting info from the folks here have fallen into a sad pattern:

"Here is the OE explanation. What is the YE explanation?"

"The OE explanation is wrong!"

"OK, but what is the YE explanation?"

"The OE explanation is wrong!"

"That may be, but what is the YE explanation?"

"The OE explanation is wrong!"

sigh... :unsure:

#84 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:56 AM

First we were wrong because we "contradicted ourselves", and made up ad hoc stories. Now we're wrong because we haven't done these things, even though we've been accused of doing them.

What fun you could have in an evolutionist courtroom. If you haven't committed the crime, you're guilty for not committing it when they wish you did.

...  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.

View Post

Just as an experiment, let's see what I get accused of for asserting 3 + 3 = 6.

3 + 3 = 6. Hammer away! :unsure:

#85 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 11:03 AM

And the only "key question" you asked about the Goosenecks was why hadn't the oxbow broken through yet.  I didn't "brush over and ignore" the question, I gave you a detailed answer based on all that modern geology knows about incised meander formation.  The process was also presented in the geology links I provided.

View Post

I did not see an answer to the problems I pointed out. Your ballyhoos aren't going to work here. Why not just try to have a dialogue rather than constantly accusing us (or "YEs") of things we aren't doing.

#86 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 12:15 PM

I did not see an answer to the problems I pointed out. Your ballyhoos aren't going to work here.


I'll repeat the mainstream geology answer I provided in post#44

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.

Now you may not agree with it, but that is the answer as proposed by the current mainstream understanding of geologic processes.

Why not just try to have a dialogue rather than constantly accusing us (or "YEs") of things we aren't doing.


YOU are the one who accused me of "brushing off and ignoring" the question after I gave you a direct response in post#44. Why don't you look at your own behavior in a mirror for a change?

I'm trying to have an honest dialog here, and all I'm getting is people with chips on their shoulder. Look, I don't have any emotional attachment to the mainstream geologic explanation for the Goosenecks incised meanders, or the ones in the Columbia Basalt Fields. If someone comes along with a better scenario that explains all the details of the physical evidence better I'll applaud and seriously consider adopting it. But I can't even begin to judge if another explanation is better when no one will provide a detailed alternate explanation.

Please, enough with the "the OE explanation is wrong!" chant when that is not what I have been asking for. Thanks.

#87 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 12:25 PM

Yes your brush off answer ignores the state of the canyon that I pointed out in these posts:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26071

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26076

Can't you see, like others here, that according to the millions of years meander that the incise should have been cut through based upon the current topography that everyone else sees except you. Early on the oxbow wouldn't have been an oxbow it would have been an island. Theoretically, the oxbow, according to the model you're offering, was already cut off.

Remember this question?

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

This question was never answered.

#88 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 01:02 PM

Yes your brush off answer ignores the state of the canyon that I pointed out in these posts:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26071

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26076

Can't you see, like others here, that according to the millions of years meander that the incise should have been cut through based upon the current topography that everyone else sees except you. Early on the oxbow wouldn't have been an oxbow it would have been an island. Theoretically, the oxbow, according to the model you're offering, was already cut off.

Remember this question?

What kind of water movement and geological activity makes a river meander around a hill when it could just go through a valley?


This question was never answered.

Oh fer cryin' out loud. :unsure:

The river didn't "go around the hill instead of through the valley" because the hill and the valley didn't exist on the original flat plane where the river first meandered and became incised.

The only reason there is a "hill" and "valley"at all is because that is land in the middle of the oxbow not cut by the river. Once that piece of land was isolated as a peninsula it was still subject to erosive forces of wind, rain, etc. which gave it the rounded "hill' look. The "valley" is the narrow piece of land nearest the oxbow which has eroded down more because it started off with less mass to begin with.

You're right, I didn't bother to explain this because I assumed it would be obvious to even someone with no knowledge of basic geology. My bad.

Here is a nice two part Flash animation of the meander formation process.

http://www.wwnorton....ring_stream.htm

In the case of the Goosenecks, again once the river cut into the underlying hard rock it ceased virtually all lateral movement but continued to erode almost straight down. The parts of the rock that were left were still subject to other erosion.

#89 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 01:22 PM

I'm no geologist but I think I'm just going to use my own gray matter to continue to look at the wear patterns and exercise some God given discernment. Thanks to Google Earth we have the optimum perspective for looking at the drainage patterns that produced the Canyon at Goosenecks State Park.

First, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Assist24 is wanting us to justify a drainage pattern that follows the current river flow. I think I can prove that current river activity is not the key to how that canyon formed.

The picture I feel that we are being asked to justify is; how does rapid water flow carve out a canyon like this, with water carving out like the arrows in the picture:

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon_03_01.jpg   150.62KB   13 downloads

I think the actual story is a little different. Something that is hard to understand is turbulent water flow. Water doesn't just flow in one direction, it tumbles and rolls. Water in a river can and does flow backwards at times and turbulence is magnified or reduced depending on forces at play like volume and the medium that's directing it. I believe early on when the post flood lake was violently draining the drainage patterns would have conflicted with each other generating the unusual feature that we see:

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon_03_02.jpg   158.26KB   14 downloads

I believe the areas circled in blue would have received severe levels of turbulence because water was gushing in from all directions. After the most violent episodes of drainage had taken place the river in its own infancy, as a violent river, polished off the work and this unusual shape was the ultimate path of least resistance.

One feature that seems to be the most telltale, regarding the up stream river turbulence, would be this feature here:

Attached File  Goosenecks_Canyon_04_01.jpg   154.1KB   14 downloads

The area that I have circled in blue looks like it was initially carved out by an "up river" drainage pattern.

Pardon me if I hadn't used all the proper terminology, since I'm not a geologist, but I think what I said is clear enough for people to consider as a viable explanation for what violent activity birthed that unusual feature.

#90 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 01:31 PM

The river didn't "go around the hill instead of through the valley" because the hill and the valley didn't exist on the original flat plane where the river first meandered and became incised.

View Post

Put your thinking cap on for this one. Wouldn't we both agree that that low area, circled in blue, in this picture was carved by water?

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26076

#91 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 01:35 PM

Just for the record. I'm not confused on the concept of meandering rivers. The Mississippi is a great example and if you use Google Earth there are plenty of beautiful cut off oxbows.

I believe you are perpetrating an identity crisis with Goosenecks State Park because different forces created a feature that has a similar shape to a meandering river and really the similarity is just one atribute (the one you're contesting) everything else is wildly different from the Mississippi. Maybe, just maybe, there's more than meets the eye.

#92 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 16 March 2009 - 01:46 PM

assist24,

You have clearly demonstrated that you are nothing but a time wasting troll.You said the picture i posted of the stratafied layers was dry ash,when you got caught lying you had to resort to ad homs to continue arguing.Thats the only arguement evolutionists are ever able to provide around here and thats more telling than anything else.

You should provide a source verifying the picture i posted is dry ash,thats how information is shared around here not throwing a childish fit because your delusion is exposed.

#93 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:05 PM

Put your thinking cap on for this one. Wouldn't we both agree that that low area, circled in blue, in this picture was carved by water?

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=26076

View Post

Not by being completely submerged in swirling water, no.

By rainwater runoff coupled with wind erosion, yes.

BTW, river meanders have very have distinctly nonsymmetrical banks due to the different water pressure gradients that cause the bends to meander in the first place, and indeed that is what is seen at Goosenecks.

But I do applaud your effort to offer up with a different model that we can investigate together, something no one else here would do. Sounds like fun!

#94 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:17 PM

blah blah blah


"the Schnebly Formation has a 10 million year unconformity at the Grand Canyon!"

"stratification only forms in water!"

"tuffa is a kind of lava!"

BWAHAHAHAHA!! :unsure: :unsure: :lol:

Geology 101 Jason777, it's never too late to learn.

#95 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:19 PM

Both of you need to cool it so I don't have to close this thread.

#96 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:33 PM

By rainwater runoff coupled with wind erosion, yes.

View Post

You assume this because the river didn't ultimately cut through there. If the river ever was meandering slowly at that higher elevation, as you assume, what would have more likely been the force to erode through there first? rain...wind...or a river?

#97 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:51 PM

For those that are looking on. I offer the next exhibit:

Attached File  Over_view.jpg   184.51KB   17 downloads

In the lower right hand corner you'll see the canyon segment at Goosenecks State Park that is in dispute. The red arrows show river flow direction. Look at the large raised area that is circled in the upper right hand.

Last but not least look at how the river straightens out when it gets past the higher area, in the upper left corner of the picture, which would probably have marked the area that the breach occurred. The Colorado River has similar patterns.

If that isn't the marks of rapid erosion caused by a basin draining I don't know what is. Those unusual meanders are so unusual because they were being formed in the bottom of a lake draining out with water moving in all directions in a very turbulent fashion. The canyon formed after the lake is much straighter because it received a more directed and straight flow, as we can all see with our own eyes.

3darzVqzV2o

This video shows the snap judgments and long fairy tales that our hero Darwin was so well known for and still permeate our thinking since Hutton's long ages and Lyell's slow geology have been infused into our culture's chronological snobbery.

#98 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 03:08 PM

I want to address one more point of contention as well. The idea that the river was either carved out of soft mud or hard rock is a faulty dilemma. Couldn't it have been some thing softer then what we see today a concoction of soft rock that was still curing and settling relative to what we see today but not mud.

#99 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 03:51 PM

Last but not least look at how the river straightens out when it gets past the higher area, in the upper left corner of the picture, which would probably have marked the area that the breach occurred. The Colorado River has similar patterns.


Actually, the pattern of the meanders in the San Juan and Colorado has been investigated. Turns out it's directly related to the slope of the reaches (sections of the underlying bedrock) the river was flowing on

Controlling factors in the distribution and development of incised meanders in the central Colorado Plateau
DEBORAH R. HARDEN
Geological Society of America Bulletin; February 1990; v. 102; no. 2; p. 233-242;

Abstract: study of the distribution and geometry of incised meanders in 64 reaches encompassed approximately 600 km of the Green, Colorado, and San Juan Rivers in the central Colorado Plateau. The sinuosity, average planform size, and average cross-sectional symmetry of each reach were determined by map measurements and by spectral analysis of the curvature series for each reach, as determined from interpolations of the digitized traces of the channels. Possible controlling variables examined, including average channel gradient, drainage area, average bedrock erodibility, and bedrock structure, were compiled for each reach, using available maps. Gradients in the studied reaches are significantly correlated with bedrock type.

Sinuous incised channels are generally found in low-gradient reaches. In the San Juan River, the channel is sinuous where it flows against the bedrock dip and generally straight in reaches where flow is downdip. This correlation is weak in the Green and Colorado Rivers. The average meander size of the sinuous reaches, as described by the median curvature value for each reach, is generally less in steeper reaches than in low-gradient reaches, although the relation of bend size to controlling variables is much less clear than for sinuosity or cross-section shape. Most meander cross sections in the area are relatively symmetrical, but highly ingrown forms are also present. In general, symmetric bends are associated with resistant bedrock units, whereas ingrown forms develop in massive sandstone and in highly erodible bedrock. Gradient significantly influences the distribution of ingrown bends, with asymmetric meanders concentrated in reaches of low average gradient; this correlation is stronger than that between cross-section shape and lithology itself.

Incised meanders of the central Colorado Plateau are probably at least partly inherited from ancestral streams of unknown age that flowed across the area before the present canyons were cut. Correlation between meander distribution and regional structures suggests that the general location of low-gradient sinuous reaches has probably not changed during the incision of the present canyons. Incised meanders, however, are clearly able to modify their geometry in response to changes in bedrock resistance, as indicated by the strong correlation between bedrock type and cross-section symmetry. One mechanism of modification is abandonment of bends, which is documented by 18 cutoff meanders in the study area.

source


If that isn't the marks of rapid erosion caused by a basin draining I don't know what is.


Thinking cap time! :)

What features from a satellite photo, specifically, caused you to decide it was rapid erosion versus taking hundreds of thousands of years? How rapid is rapid?

Those unusual meanders are so unusual because they were being formed in the bottom of a lake draining out with water moving in all directions in a very turbulent fashion.

What would cause the water to move in such a turbulent fashion if it was all flowing out a single exit to the Northwest? Flowing water gets its energy from gravity, and it would take an awful lot of energy to move that much water in a swirling pattern to remove that much soil. Let's not violate the laws of physics here. ;)

A good example of what happens when a major lake is suddenly breached is the Lake Missoula floods that produced the scablands in eastern Washington. Notice that there were no swirling or meander like structures produced at all, only straight cut channels with very distinct geologic signatures.

Glacial Lake Missoula

I want to address one more point of contention as well. The idea that the river was either carved out of soft mud or hard rock is a faulty dilemma. Couldn't it have been some thing softer then what we see today a concoction of soft rock that was still curing and settling relative to what we see today but not mud.


How could the flood laid sediments be curing and setting if they were still underwater below the lake?

#100 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 03:58 PM

What would cause the water to move in such a turbulent fashion if it was all flowing out a single exit to the Northwest?

View Post

I hand the thinking cap back to you. Regardless of whether we understand it perfectly or not is irrelevant. We can demonstrate similar activity in a sandbox.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users