Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


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

#61 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:01 AM

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.

Thanks jamesf for the welcome and the advice, I appreciate it. I can improve at the patience part, so that when someone says something so blatantly and demonstrably wrong like "stratification (of ash) only forms in water" I won't be short with them.

The rivers incised in basalt have fascinated me for years. For instance,

A large portion of the pacific northwest is overlaid with a huge basalt field called the Columbia River Basalt. Conventional geology thinks this field formed between 14-16 MYA from the massive volcanic activity driven by plate tectonics

Posted Image

Over time, several major rivers (Columbia, Snake) and their tributaries have managed to erode deep winding meanders into the solidified basalt. A good example is the Powder River in Oregon

THE GEOLOGY OF THE LOWER HALF OF THE POWDER RIVER CANYON BETWEEN THIEF VALLEY RESERVOIR AND THE LOWER POWDER VALLEY, BAKER COUNTY, OREGON
Ben Zublin
Science Department, Badgley Science Center, Eastern Oregon University

Abstract:  The Powder River between Thief Valley dam and the Lower Powder Valley is the deepest (244 m; 800 ft) and the gradient of the river is steepest (~9 m/km; 48 ft/mi) where the river cuts across faults that mark the margins of uplifted and tilted fault blocks.  These sections of the river are the site of three large landslides that formed because steep slopes created by rapid river down-cutting, structural failure of tuff beds underlying the thick olivine basalt flows in the area, and, possibly, earthquakes activity.  Two large-scale meanders in the course of the river appear to be related to geologic structures in the metamorphic bedrock.  If uplift rates in the Powder River Canyon area were similar to those to the north between Telocaset and the Grande Ronde Valley over the past 9 million years, then the Powder River began carving the canyon between Thief Valley dam and the Lower Powder River at ~2 million years ago, the same time as when Lake Idaho drained out through Hells Canyon.  The high river gradients, the abundance of landslides, and the occurrence of a magnitude 3.6 earthquake in 1969 along one of the faults in the area adjacent to the river suggest that uplift is continuing in the area and indicate that the river is still adjusting to the rotation and tilting of the fault blocks in the area.

Introduction:  The Powder River and its principal tributaries originate on the east and west flanks of the Elkhorn Mountains of Baker County, Oregon.  The river enters the Baker Valley at Baker City, flows northward to a point a few miles east of the town of North Powder, and enters a canyon that is deeply incised into the Powder River Volcanic Field and the underlying Mesozoic volcanic arc sequence (Bailey, 1990).  The river flows through the canyon southeastward approximately 32 km (20 miles) across a series of uplifted fault blocks that tilt toward the east before exiting into the broad Lower Powder Valley syncline (Brooks and others, 1976).  Below Thief Valley Reservoir, the Powder River flows through a rugged gorge that is more than 244 m (800 ft) deep from rim to riverbed, yet often less than half a mile wide.  The river elevation drops from 950 m (3100 ft) at the upstream end of this stretch to 850 m (2800 ft) at the outlet of the canyon.  This part of the Powder River Canyon includes huge landslides, entrenched meanders, precipitous cliffs and rock outcrops, and other features of geologic interest (Fig. 1).

Posted Image

source, read more here


Again, here we have incised (entrenched) meanders cutting down through over 800 ft. of solid basalt. Similar things are found in the other rivers in the area too, like the Snake River shown here

Posted Image

Maybe someday I'll get the detailed YE explanation for how these rivers formed in the basalt.

#62 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 01:13 PM

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!

View Post

Exactly?

Exactly as I expected. You have no creationist source.

a.) There is no creationist explanation

and

b.) There is an unsatisfactory creationist explanation

are not equivalent.

I have not found the features on the San Juan River which you indicate creationists explain poorly mentioned in creation science literature. Talkdeceptions mentions them, I notice.

I don't believe creation scientists have got around to explaining every square inch of the earth's surface in detail. I expect if they had 1% of the resources devoted to promoting religious indoctrination in these matters they could've easily accomplished the task.

If you take the time to become familiar with creation science, you may find (as I have found) that there are problems and disputes regarding certain regions and features. I'll let you do your own homework this time.

In the meantime, maybe you can be content to win your agrumentum ad dollarum.

#63 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 15 March 2009 - 03:04 PM

The bottom line problems (in my eyes) with the geologic record is that mainstream scientists say millions of years and the YEC say thousands.

The reference points are the key. What is the relative year zero?

If mainstream Science wishes to object to the Creation view it should concern itself solely with the evidence within such strata as is 6000 years old as the YEC people state it to be.

Likewise, the YEC people should not bicker about discrepincies (in millions) within that which mainstream science states is a geological knowledge that the claim predates that.

I am not an advocate of NOMA - Non-overlapping magisteria - i think it's fair to apply the rules as described....... to level the playing field.

just a thot........

#64 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 - 04:43 PM

Is either claim a process that can be tested in a lab and the time it takes actually observed? No?

Then all we have are two sides claiming something that neither can produce and observable process.

Example: I was taught, and it is still written in science text books, that oil takes millions of years to form "Period". No ifs, ands, or buts.

But what evidence did they really have to prove this? Nothing.
What observable process did they have to prove this? Nothing.

And because of that, making that claim as a fact. What did they set themselves up for? To be proven wrong when an observable process produced itself. And it did. Given the right conditions, biomass can produce oil in less than a day.

Now did science own up to being wrong on this issue? Nope.
Did they change the claims in our school text books? Nope.
Are they even worried that our kids are being taught a lie? Nope.

So why should we trust science when science does not even care that what we teach our kids is truth or not?

Now back to subject...

Like I said, neither side can produce an actual process to prove their claim. So at this point to say or claim that one side is absolutely wrong just because I disagree with their belief, sets that side up to be wrong when a actual process is discovered.

So if either side thinks they are absolutely right, produce your observable process so that all can see and this will be settled here and now. Other wise all this debate is, are claims being made with no real proof.

In fact it sounds like a kids fight. Your wrong because of this, no your wrong because of that. Your wrong because you are a stupid YEC, no you are wrong because you are a bias EVO.

What does all that really prove? That no one can actually prove what they are claiming.

#65 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 - 04:51 PM

The bottom line problems (in my eyes) with the geologic record is that mainstream scientists say millions of years and the YEC say thousands.

The reference points are the key. What is the relative year zero?

If mainstream Science wishes to object to the Creation view it should concern itself solely with the evidence within such strata as is 6000 years old as the YEC people state it to be.

Likewise, the YEC people should not bicker about discrepincies (in millions) within that which mainstream science states is a geological knowledge that the claim predates that.

I am not an advocate of NOMA - Non-overlapping magisteria - i think it's fair to apply the rules as described....... to level the playing field.

just a thot........

[snapback]26120

Are mainstream scientist always right? Or do they just ignore stuff when they are wrong so that they don't look wrong?

When is the last time anyone heard an actual scientist stand before a public audience and admit to being totally wrong? Instead they reason their way out of being wrong to make being wrong sound right. Implying to have all the right wisdom in everything they do is like also claiming to have God knowledge. So which is it?

Since you are exalting science above creation on every issue. I am bringing science down to reality to bring to a level playing field.

So is science always right?
And when did you last hear a scientis admit to being totally wrong without reasoning it to sound right?

It's like the video below demonstrates:



How can this person ever be wrong, when he deems that he already knows everything?


Edited by Bonedigger, 14 December 2013 - 01:29 PM.
Fixed Youtube embed


#66 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 06:42 PM

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!

Exactly?

Exactly as I expected. You have no creationist source.

a.) There is no creationist explanation

and

b.) There is an unsatisfactory creationist explanation

are not equivalent.


How can I determine if the creationist explanation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory when I can't find a soul willing to tell me what the creationist explanation even is?

Please tell me what the creationist explanation is and then we can discuss it. Thanks!

#67 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:33 PM

Is either claim a process that can be tested in a lab and the time it takes actually observed? No?

Then all we have are two sides claiming something that neither can produce and observable process.

Actually, the rates and processes of river entrenchment and river meander formation have been extensively studied. Countless real world observations have been made, detailed mathematical models have been produced, and the models have been verified with scaled laboratory testing and empirical measurements on real world rivers and streams. The topic has become quite important in recent years, as the effect of global warming caused climate changes on river flows in farming and near populated areas is predicted. The analysis include work on soil / material strength, water flow patterns, sediment transport (the amount of soil a river can carry), the effects of water/soil content on bank erosion. A few of many available examples of the current research:

Hydraulic Losses in River Meanders
Gary L. Brown; Ronald R. Copeland; Craig Fischenich;
ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG MS COASTAL AND HYDRAULICS LAB

Abstract: Energy losses along a channel reach occur from friction along the channel boundaries and bed surface and channel irregularities, obstructions, vegetation, channel meandering, and many other parameters of lesser importance. Conventional application of hydraulic computations between two cross sections requires that these losses be represented by the application of a resistance or roughness coefficient. These coefficients are determined empirically. Although much research has been expended developing relations for resistance due to grain size, bed form, and vegetation, relatively little research has focused on the influence of channel meanders. This shortcoming has implications in stream restoration practice for urban channels because many designs include sinuous channels in areas where flooding impacts must be assessed. This technical note discusses and analyzes several methods to estimate the hydraulic loss induced by river meanders (hereafter referred to as meander losses). These methods may be used to adjust the channel Manning's roughness coefficient used in hydraulic calculations and in numerical models such as HEC-RAS, HEC-2 and HEC-6. A method is recommended, with conditions, and topics of further study are suggested in this technical note.

source


Simulation of Meandering Channel Migration Processes with the Enhanced CCHE2D
DUAN, JIA, WANG
University of Mississippi Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering (CCHE)

ABSTRACT:  Meandering channels are characterized by their shapes that consist of a sequence of smooth bend loops. A remarkable property of meandering evolution processes is the persistent erosion along the outer bank and sediment deposition along the inner bank, which form the unique alternate bar and pool topography, and make a meandering channel migrate downstream. Because of the complexity of the phenomena and the variability of boundary conditions, the prediction of meandering channel processes by laboratory experiments, field data analysis, and theoretical analysis can only describe the channel centerline's statistical tendencies with the averaged mean properties of bend geometry and flow conditions.

With the advancement of high-speed computers, the simulation of meandering channel evolution processes with a numerical model becomes feasible and cost-effective tool. In this paper, a meandering channel migration model is presented in which flow, sediment transport and bank erosion are computed. As has been recognized by many researchers, bed load transport in the transversal direction due to both the secondary flow and the transversal component of gravitational force is appreciable in addition to the transport in the longitudinal direction. An enhanced two-dimensional depth-averaged model called the enhanced CCHE2D (Duan, 1998), in which the characteristics of the secondary flow formulated from a three-dimensional model, CCHE3D, have been applied to convert the two-dimensional flow field to a three-dimensional one, is used to simulate the flow field. Therefore this enhanced 2D model is capable of simulating the bed morphological change under various boundary conditions. Suspended sediment transport rate is obtained by using this quasi-3D velocity field. Upon knowing the sediment transport rate, sediment continuity equation is solved to obtain bed elevation change.

Instead of using Ikeda's (1981) bank erosion method, a bank erosion rate equation in the partial differential form is derived based on the conservation of momentum and mass at near bank region. The speed of bank retreat or advance is related with the gradient of longitudinal sediment flux, the strength of the secondary flow and the amount of sediment eroded from the bank. Finally, this model is verified by predicting the developing processes of a meandering channel. The downstream migration, lateral growth, distortion, and cutoff are simulated by this model. The model can be used as an alternative tool for hydraulic engineers to predict the evolution processes of a meandering channel.

source


Example: I was taught, and it is still written in science text books, that oil takes millions of years to form "Period". No ifs, ands, or buts.

But what evidence did they really have to prove this? Nothing.
What observable process did they have to prove this? Nothing.

And because of that, making that claim as a fact. What did they set themselves up for? To be proven wrong when an observable process produced itself. And it did. Given the right conditions, biomass can produce oil in less than a day.

Keep in mind that the "oil" produced by biomass is the lab is quite dissimilar to crude natural petroleum, both in biochemical makeup and physical properties.

Now did science own up to being wrong on this issue? Nope.
Did they change the claims in our school text books? Nope.
Are they even worried that our kids are being taught a lie? Nope.

So why should we trust science when science does not even care that what we teach our kids is truth or not?

Um...AFAIK no one was proved wrong, as all the available evidence still indicates naturally occurring petroleum pumped from the ground took millions of years to form, given the maximum known naturally occurring temperatures and pressures. No lies were told.

Now back to subject...

Like I said, neither side can produce an actual process to prove their claim. So at this point to say or claim that one side is absolutely wrong just because I disagree with their belief, sets that side up to be wrong when a actual process is discovered.

So if either side thinks they are absolutely right, produce your observable process so that all can see and this will be settled here and now. Other wise all this debate is, are claims being made with no real proof.

In fact it sounds like a kids fight. Your wrong because of this, no your wrong because of that. Your wrong because you are a stupid YEC, no you are wrong because you are a bias EVO.

What does all that really prove? That no one can actually prove what they are claiming.

I personally make no claims as to the overall correctness, but as far as incised river meander formation like the Goosenecks I must point out that the OE folks have done tremendous amount of research and have produced a detailed set of processes that explain the phenomenon. I have tried to present some of that knowledge here.

I wish the YE side would do the same so we could calmly and rationally compare compare the two side by side.

#68 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 12:21 AM


Exactly?

Exactly as I expected. You have no creationist source.

a.) There is no creationist explanation

and

b.) There is an unsatisfactory creationist explanation

are not equivalent.


How can I determine if the creationist explanation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory when I can't find a soul willing to tell me what the creationist explanation even is?

Please tell me what the creationist explanation is and then we can discuss it. Thanks!

View Post

Now it's -a-? This is inconsistent with all the -b- talk.


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

Looks like a -b- complaint.

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

...
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.

View Post

Sounds like more -b- talk.

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.

View Post

I'd ask for examples of contradictory "YE ad hoc arguments", but I have an idea the "YE"s you mention are not actual creation scientists. If they exist at all, I suspect they are folks trying to unravel mysteries on-the-fly. I have to wonder how many, if any, are willing to buy into the idea that all strata must be attributed to the flood of Noah's day.

I can understand how a dabbler might make the mistake of accepting this false position. Evolutionists have repeated it often enough, and one imagines a person could potentially be naíve enough to take their word for it. Actually, if not for this potential, they'd be wasting their time repeating it, wouldn't they? It's counter-productive to demonstrate that one is too cowardly to properly acknowledge the position one claims to be attacking.

Edited for quotebox repair and again because some text was interpreted as a smiley.

Edited by CTD, 16 March 2009 - 12:26 AM.


#69 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 - 01:38 AM

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

View Post


The ash cloud from Mt. St. Helens was carried by the wind to the east and north east.The Toutle River flows west to the Pacific Ocean (the opposite direction the ash cloud traveled) and the strata that flowed down it was mainly sediments from the collapse of the mountain itself mixed with millions of gallons of water from the melted glacier,snow,steam,and hot gasses.

The eruption was preceded by a two-month series of earthquakes and steam-venting episodes, caused by an injection of magma at shallow depth below the volcano that created a huge bulge and a fracture system on Mount St. Helens' north slope. An earthquake at 8:32:17 a.m. on May 18, 1980 caused the entire weakened north face to slide away, suddenly exposing the partly molten, gas- and steam-rich rock in the volcano to lower pressure. The rock responded by exploding a very hot mix of lava and pulverized older rock toward Spirit Lake, so quickly, it avoided the avalanching north face.

A volcanic ash column rose high into the atmosphere and deposited ash in 11 U.S. states. At the same time, snow, ice, and several entire glaciers on the volcano melted, forming a series of large lahars (volcanic mudslides) that reached as far as the Columbia River, nearly fifty miles (eighty kilometers) to the south. Less severe outbursts continued into the next day only to be followed by other large but not as destructive eruptions later in 1980.


http://en.wikipedia....ount_St._Helens

The mud flows completely blocked the Toutle River from emptying into the pacific ocean.It was the next eruption that formed the "Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River".

The landslide of May 18 had buried the river and highway to Spirit Lake to an average 150'.  It also buried most other drainages in the 23 square miles of the Upper Toutle Valley and plugged the valley's mouth.  For twenty-two months no established path for water to the Pacific Ocean existed.

Then, on March 19, 1982, an eruption melted a large snow pack that had accumulated in the crater over the winter.  The waters mixed with loose material on the slopes of the mountain creating an enormous mudflow.  In nine hours while no eye watched, the mudflow carved an integrated system of drainages over much of the valley and reopened the way to the Pacific Ocean.  The drainages included at least three canyons 100' deep.  One was nicknamed "The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle" because it is a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon.


http://www.creationi...1b_7wonders.htm

Here is a picture of the canyon again.

Posted Image

Notice that we observe a small river snaking through a wide and catastrophicly formed canyon that we observed forming in the matter of hours.Now lets compare that to a canyon that we did'nt see form and see if it has the same charactaristics.

Posted Image

Notice here in the Grand Canyon we observe the same thing.A small snaking river flowing through a wide canyon 18-24 miles wide.




Thanks.

#70 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 - 01:54 AM

Hi James,

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.


Not hardly because it's an oxymoron.Lava is one of the lightest and most porous rock types in existence.A type called "tuffa" is commonly used in the aquarium hobby because it has a tremendous surface area and is light as a feather.On the Moh's scale you would find lava on one end and granite on the other.Who would argue against erosion through one of the least dense rock types in the world,that doesnt make sense to me.





Thanks.

#71 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 16 March 2009 - 04:49 AM

Actually, the rates and processes of river entrenchment and river meander formation have been extensively studied.  Countless real world observations have been made, detailed mathematical models have been produced, and the models have been verified with scaled laboratory testing and empirical measurements on real world rivers and streams.  The topic has become quite important in recent years, as the effect of global warming caused climate changes on river flows in farming and near populated areas is predicted.  The analysis include work on soil / material strength, water flow patterns, sediment transport (the amount of soil a river can carry), the effects of water/soil content on bank erosion.  A few of many available examples of the current research:
Keep in mind that the "oil" produced by biomass is the lab is quite dissimilar to crude natural petroleum, both in biochemical makeup and physical properties.

Um...AFAIK no one was proved wrong, as all the available evidence still indicates naturally occurring petroleum pumped from the ground took millions of years to form, given the maximum known naturally occurring temperatures and pressures.   No lies were told.
I personally make no claims as to the overall correctness, but as far as incised river meander formation like the Goosenecks I must point out that the OE folks have done tremendous amount of research and have produced a detailed set of processes that explain the phenomenon.  I have tried to present some of that knowledge here.

I wish the YE side would do the same so we could calmly and rationally compare compare the two side by side.

View Post


Of course barring any other tests done like this one that totally challenges the geologic column.



What wrong with this video? It supports creation.

Destroying the geologic column idea totally destroys any OE ideas.

#72 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:50 AM

The mud flows completely blocked the Toutle River from emptying into the pacific ocean.It was the next eruption that formed the "Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River".

Here is a picture of the canyon again.

Notice that we observe a small river snaking through a wide and catastrophicly formed canyon that we observed forming in the matter of hours.Now lets compare that to a canyon that we did'nt see form and see if it has the same charactaristics.

Notice here in the Grand Canyon we observe the same thing.A small snaking river flowing through a wide canyon 18-24 miles wide.

LOL! Jason777, you crack me up!

First it was "stratified ash can only form in water". :unsure:

Now you take a picture of a flow that followed the already existing contours of a meandering river and removed some additional material from the banks a few hundred feet wide. Then you say that's evidence for the formation of a completely new rapidly formed meandering river a few hundred thousand feet wide and over a mile deep, carved in solid rock, because if you rescale the photo 1000x times they superficially have the same shape?

:unsure: :lol: :lol:

You really need to invest in a good Geology101 textbook. Seriously.

#73 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:51 AM

I'd ask for examples of contradictory "YE ad hoc arguments", but I have an idea the "YE"s you mention are not actual creation scientists. If they exist at all, I suspect they are folks trying to unravel mysteries on-the-fly. I have to wonder how many, if any, are willing to buy into the idea that all strata must be attributed to the flood of Noah's day.

I can understand how a dabbler might make the mistake of accepting this false position. Evolutionists have repeated it often enough, and one imagines a person could potentially be naíve enough to take their word for it. Actually, if not for this potential, they'd be wasting their time repeating it, wouldn't they? It's counter-productive to demonstrate that one is too cowardly to properly acknowledge the position one claims to be attacking.


I have not once attacked any YE models for incised meander formation, because I don't know what they are. I have politely asked, not attacked, asked you to please provide one so that I may examine it. If you don't know enough about the topic, fine. I'm ignorant on lots of topics too. But hiding your ignorance by misrepresenting my honest questions as an attack doesn't do either of us or the discussion any good.

As far as strata being attributed to Noah's Flood, I can't find a YE source that doesn't say that.

AIG says the Grand Canyon layers were Flood laid

According to the biblical model, the vast majority of the sedimentary layers we see in the Grand Canyon (and in the rest of the world for that matter) were deposited as the result of a global flood that occurred after, and ultimately as a result of, the initial sin that took place in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.

http://www.answersin...2005/1222gc.asp


ICR says the layers were Flood laid

The Grand Canyon
The Grand Canyon is almost three hundred miles long, a mile deep, and four to twelve miles across. One's first view of the Grand Canyon is a humbling experience. You truly have to see it to believe it. I was mesmerized and could hardly contain my excitement when I caught my first glimpse of the canyon. I was there to partake in a six-day geology hike into the canyon with the Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth creationist organization. ICR believes that the strata, the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, were primarily formed during Noah's flood perhaps only five thousand years ago. Most geologists, including Christian old-earth creationists, believe that the strata were laid down over hundreds of millions of years. What better way, then, to equip myself for the study of the earth's age, than to spend nine days around the Grand Canyon (six of them in it) with ICR geologist, physicists, and biologists. ICR has been conducting these tours for over ten years, so everything runs extremely well. Though I was a member of a hiking group, they also sponsored a group going down the Colorado River in rafts and a group touring the whole area by bus. All were accompanied by ICR scientists. Each day we received mini-lectures from the leaders as we broke for lunch or at points of interest along the trail. Topics included the sudden appearance of fossils, the complexity of the earliest canyon fossils such as the trilobites, the age of the earth's magnetic fields, the role of continental drift in the onset of the flood, where does the ice age fit into a young-earth model, water- canopy theories, carbon-14 dating, and the dating of the Grand Canyon basalts (rock layers derived from ancient lava flows).

http://www.origins.o...randcanyon.html


Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr Steve Austin of the RATE group say the layers were Flood laid.

Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

http://www.answersin...dences-part-one


Now if you want to consider AIG, ICR, and the RATE PhD geologists "dabblers" who misunderstand and are putting out a false YE position, be my guest. In the mean time, since you disagree with all those professionals, can you tell me what the real YE position is on the formation of the GC strata?

#74 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:51 AM

LOL!  Jason777, you crack me up!

First it was "stratified ash can only form in water". :unsure:

Now you take a picture of a flow that followed the already existing contours of a meandering river and removed some additional material from the banks a few hundred feet wide.  Then you say that's evidence for the formation of a completely  new rapidly formed meandering river a few hundred thousand feet wide and over a mile deep, carved in solid rock, because if you rescale the photo 1000x times they superficially have the same shape?

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

You really need to invest in a good Geology101 textbook.  Seriously.

View Post

I think someone needs to learn how to make a real argument. And how to read one when it's presented.

I don't see that the scale of the picture has anything at all to do with it. How is seeing things more clearly going to lead to erroneous conclusions? We know evolutionism lurks in the corners of the unknown, but to protest openly when things are shown more clearly is poor strategy.

After one read this,

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. :unsure:

View Post

One might not expect the party to dishonestly attribute things. Unless one were experienced.... jason777 has not said the river is completely new anywhere in this thread that I can find.

Is that what they teach in the Geology101 textbooks these days?

Also, what is the scaling limit? If the known result of the The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle cannot be applied to help understand the Grand Canyon, well, why not?

I know in aerodynamics things don't scale well. Airfoil shapes have to be drastically altered for R/C models of real aircraft. It's said most flying insects wouldn't be able to fly if they got too big. Is there something similar involved here? Or is this just a matter of convenience?

#75 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:07 AM

I have not once attacked any YE models for incised meander formation, because I don't know what they are.  I have politely asked, not attacked, asked you to please provide one so that I may examine it.  If you don't know enough about the topic, fine.  I'm ignorant on lots of topics too.  But hiding your ignorance by misrepresenting my honest questions as an attack doesn't do either of us or the discussion any good.

View Post

Please do assume everyone is blind and/or unable to scroll to other posts made in this thread. I directly quoted your attacks in post #68 of this thread, so it's too late the cat's out of the bag on that one.

I misrepresent not a thing; you show everyone just what you are. Not entirely, of course. Perhaps you think that words published while propagandizing somehow don't count? That argument might be good for a laugh. Other than that, all I see is ugliness. I would not apply the terms honest, knowledgeable, polite, or sincere to your conduct in this thread, and I wouldn't particularly think much of the sincerity of anyone who did.

#76 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:13 AM

Now if you want to consider AIG, ICR, and the RATE PhD geologists "dabblers" who misunderstand and are putting out a false YE position, be my guest.  In the mean time, since you disagree with all those professionals, can you tell me what the real YE position is on the formation of the GC strata?

View Post

I never called those people dabblers, directly or indirectly. The "goosenecks" in your picture are not even on the Colorado River. I've wasted enough time on your bunk for one day.

See you next time around, I assume...

#77 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:15 AM

Hi James,
Not hardly because it's an oxymoron.Lava is one of the lightest and most porous rock types in existence.A type called "tuffa" is commonly used in the aquarium hobby because it has a tremendous surface area and is light as a feather.On the Moh's scale you would find lava on one end and granite on the other.Who would argue against erosion through one of the least dense rock types in the world,that doesnt make sense to me.

Tuffa is not lava. Tuff (the proper scientific name) is a porous rock formed by consolidated volcanic ash that ejected from vents during an eruption.

Lava is the molten rock that flows from a volcano during an eruption. Cooled molten lava forms igneous rock such as basalt.

Basalt is one of the hardest know rocks, ranking just below granite on the Mohs scale. Basalt fibers are even used in producing heavy-duty piping used to carry acidic and abrasive liquids.

The rocks of the Columbia Basalt Group through which the incised meandering rivers run are, surprisingly enough, not tuff but basalt.

Who would argue by confusing tuff with basalt, that doesn't make sense to me. :unsure:

It's all still Geology 101 Jason777. Learning some actual geology won't hurt you, honest. :unsure:

#78 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:22 AM

I'm reminded of something folks might want to consider, when putting together models & attempting to imagine what happened in the past. Once again, the Paluxy River tracks have a lesson to teach.

Erosion is a huge problem with the tracks. Those on the bank deteriorate rapidly. Those in the river itself are preserved. Both are in solid stone. What's that indicate about erosion rates?

#79 assist24

assist24

    Member

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:33 AM

OK CTD, you've convinced me that you don't know enough to give me a YE model for those formations. You could have just said "I don't know" instead of all the pointless bluster.

I never called those people dabblers, directly or indirectly.

You inferred I was a dabbler because I said YEs think the GC layers were laid by the Flood. I showed you the actual words from professional YE geologists and organizations saying exactly that. Therefore you must think the professional YE geologists and organizations are dabblers too. QED.

The "goosenecks" in your picture are not even on the Colorado River. I've wasted enough time on your bunk for one day.


They are on the San Juan river which is a tributary of the Colorado, and which cuts through the exact same layers of strata as the Colorado/Grand Canyon.

Have you been taking geology lessons from Jason777? :unsure:

#80 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:38 AM

OK CTD, you've convinced me that you don't know enough to give me a YE model for those formations.  You could have just said "I don't know" instead of all the pointless bluster.
You inferred I was a dabbler because I said YEs think the GC layers were laid by the Flood.  I showed you the actual words from professional YE geologists and organizations saying exactly that.  Therefore you must think the professional YE geologists and organizations are dabblers too.  QED.

View Post

This has the potential to fool whom? Those who can't recall and are too lazy to scroll up the page, right? No problem.

I'd ask for examples of contradictory "YE ad hoc arguments", but I have an idea the "YE"s you mention are not actual creation scientists. If they exist at all, I suspect they are folks trying to unravel mysteries on-the-fly. I have to wonder how many, if any, are willing to buy into the idea that all strata must be attributed to the flood of Noah's day.

I can understand how a dabbler might make the mistake of accepting this false position. Evolutionists have repeated it often enough, and one imagines a person could potentially be naíve enough to take their word for it. Actually, if not for this potential, they'd be wasting their time repeating it, wouldn't they? It's counter-productive to demonstrate that one is too cowardly to properly acknowledge the position one claims to be attacking.

That was easy.

They are on the San Juan river which is a tributary of the Colorado, and which cuts through the exact same layers of strata as the Colorado/Grand Canyon.

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users