Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
"Not only has this creationist falsehood been answered but what does it have to do with the topic? it only demonstates yet again your complete lack of any explanation for any aspect of geology, so you have to resorting to posting refuted nonsense, truly, truly pathetic."...
I find it funny when a creationist has a point evolutionists just call it nonsense..just ask us to go away...thats what evolutionists are good for silencing critics so it doesn't hurt their fairy tale...ask Prof Dean Kenyon of SF State..see how evolutionists attack someone of his stature..so your replies are indicative of your dogma to this faith.
am i dodging the question?.i'm responding aren't i?
Just because you are responding does not mean that you are not dodging the issue. Do your responses directly address the feature discussed in the opening post? No, you are posting off-topic replies and trying to further spin off topic with irrelevant links.
..heres one for you lucas, how did sexual reproduction occur and what were the mechanisms and examples that have been found in nature?...find a case where species thru mutations were created?...no distraction here
What do you mean "no distraction here"--this thread is about Devil's Tower!
I find it funny when a creationist has a point evolutionists just call it nonsense..so your replies are indicative of your dogma to this faith.
So when you post some irrelavent previously falsified nonsense from a creationist website and are completely unable to make any relavent point that isn't nonsense evasion and your complete failure to make one single relavent point in this entire thread except feeble attempts at evasion isn't pathetic?
Pointing out that your feeble pointless and irrelavent posts have nothing to do with the subject hardly indicates dogma, dogmatic would be someone who had every single post they made refuted, and were completely unable to refute this or any other evidence for an old earth but still believed uncrtically in the lies told to them by unchristian frauds demonstrating contempt for God Jesus and the vaules of true christians.
--I suggest substantiating your criticism by doing a thorough analysis of the math involved in the compaction of sediments as a most relevant factor in the ultimate lithification of unconsolidated sediments. This will also substantiate any criticisms against the potential slumping of grand canyon walls subsequent to its erosion (as a criticism against a scenario of rapid deposition of the sediments exposed in the canyon).
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
I didn't realize we were discussing the Grand Canyon. I'm looking for a flood model that can explain devils tower.
1) Formation of over 900 feet of sedimentary ROCK.
1) Intrusion into existing sedimentary ROCK.
2) Cooling of the intrusion slowly (based on the formation of the ROCK)
3) Removal of the 900 feet of sedimentary rock after the formation has cooled.
I would guess that even runaway subduction or accelerated decay can't provide a mechanism for this.
"So when you post some irrelavent previously falsified nonsense from a creationist website and are completely unable to make any relavent point that isn't nonsense evasion and your complete failure to make one single relavent point in this entire thread except feeble attempts at evasion isn't pathetic"..
listen clown... what have you added? ..read the links it tries to explain DT...if you don't like it then move on..for you to accuse me of not trying to answer the question is ridiculous...so what if its from a website..I don't believe you or lucaspa or anyone else discovered evolution on your own..so is your information from your own great minds absent anyone elses inut? often i see talkorigins.org in your responses ..yet you don't condemn those people..your bias is very obvious
Only one of your links tries to explain Devil's Tower, but only superficially and not to the length specified in the opening post, which was quite clear. The link only attempts to explain columnar jointing but it gives no details, no data, and is summarized simply by it telling the reader to "just think of the great Flood of Noah's day." No reasoning, just blind dogma. It's basically saying, don't think too much, just take our word for it.
It does nothing to explain how the sediments were deposited, lithified, how the igneous intrusion occurred, the cooling of the intrusion, and the subsequent erosion of hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock to expose the feature.
A lengthy cooling time is required for the feature however (not to mention lengthy times for the deposition and lithification of sediment) because the rock is porphyritic. Large crystal sizes are formed by slow cooling. If the feature had cooled so quickly then why does the rock not have an aphanitic texture that indicates this? The crystals should all be relatively the same size and very small. That's not the type of rock we see there. It indicates different cooling rates in its history.
for you to accuse me of not trying to answer the question is ridiculous
It's not entirely ridiculous. You tried to answer the topic, but you didn't really do that. In fact, you didn't even have to put hardly any effort into your "answer" at all other than searching the ICR site and copying and pasting a link.
I didn't realize we were discussing the Grand Canyon. I'm looking for a flood model that can explain devils tower.
--You alluded to the grand canyon regarding the problem of lithification (sometimes referred to as induration, turning unconsolidated sediments into consolidated rock):
Originally Posted by notto
This formation has the same problems as flood explainations of the grand canyon. The both require laying of sediment by the flood, this sediment turning to ROCK...What mechanism would provide for this rapid ROCK formation in a flood model?
Originally Posted by notto
1) Formation of over 900 feet of sedimentary ROCK.
1) Intrusion into existing sedimentary ROCK.
2) Cooling of the intrusion slowly (based on the formation of the ROCK)
3) Removal of the 900 feet of sedimentary rock after the formation has cooled.
I would guess that even runaway subduction or accelerated decay can't provide a mechanism for this.
Any suggested models?
--Of course, runaway subduction and accelerated decay (especially the latter) would have nothing directly to do with the processes involved in the formation of devils tower or the sediments in which it originally intruded. I am not about to do the research required to give a conclusively feasible situation through which devils tower formed and did not intend on doing so. What I did do in my previous post is provide you with a potentially very effective method which could be used to show that these rocks could or could not have lithified in the appropriate time frame. Given that you have stated that it is a 'work in progress' I presume you would like to make your criticism even more iron clad by incorperating other means of substantiating your 'falsification' and associated criticisms as valid.
--In the long run, carrying out a thorough analysis of the effects of compaction in any particular geologic setting to determine the potential for and efficiency of lithification as a function of time would not be easy. But in my opinion, it would be the best falsification of a catastrophic formation of erosional formations carved in phanerozoic sediments. For this reason I encourage you to undertake such an analysis.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 2nd December 2003 at 11:18 PM.
What I did do in my previous post is provide you with a potentially very effective method which could be used to show that these rocks could or could not have lithified in the appropriate time frame.
What would you consider an 'appropriate' time frame?
I would consider the lithification only one part of the puzzle. We need mechanisms that would put the sediment in place, have lithification happen, and then the intrusion and the intrusions cooling, and then a rather large event of erosion to remove the lithified rock (a fair amount of time after the intrusion happened due to the time needed to cool the intrusion).
Last edited by notto; 3rd December 2003 at 12:33 AM.
What would you consider an 'appropriate' time frame?
--Depends on what theoretical model your critiquing (some hypothesize that the grand canyon was a flood event, others suppose it was post-flood). But you can always do it the other way around and infer what a reasonable time frame would be for lithification and see if the model can fit. Of course the overal young earth time frame is very short (at least from the catastrophe to today, ~5000 yr or so) and lithification is generally assumed to occur over very long periods of time in uniformitarian geology so you don't have to get too detailed to objectively substantiate the presence of the problem in need of a solution.
I would consider the lithification only one part of the puzzle. We need mechanisms that would put the sediment in place, have lithification happen, and then the intrusion and the intrusions cooling, and then a rather large event of erosion to remove the lithified rock (a fair amount of time after the intrusion happened due to the time needed to cool the intrusion).
"Was there a volcano here? Mudflows? Pyroclastic ash? NO! So what happened at Mt. St Helens has nothing to do with anything here."...no but the elements of a flood environment and cataclysmic events that occired at the time may give some evidence to explain Devils Towers.
But the Devil's Tower had to be made after the Flood, because the sedimentary rocks were rocks when the DT was formed. So what happened during the Flood is irrelevant.
Let me ask you this lucaspa?have you been to Mt Helens and verified what you are trying to claim.
That layers get crushed with time? It's happened at other places. Have you verified that the layers are still there? That was my question.
I gave you a site and resources to view...take it up with steve austin at icr.org..there are numbers of ways to contact him..for you to insinuate that he is misleading the public speaks volumes about your intent to dis credit him without giving him a chance to answer your questions. I'll tell you what, I'll post your specific questions and when I get an answer I'll get back to you
1. I've e-mailed Mr. Austen before. He never answered.
2. I've already seen how he mislead the public with his K-Ar paper dating Mt. St. Helens. (the cause of my e-mail)
3. I asked you the questions so that you would be more skeptical. Apparently I've hit a nerve. When were the videos shot? Are the sediments still layered now? You are the one presenting the information as true. Don't you want to be sure it's accurate? So I thought you would want to check up with Austin yourself. Maybe you'll have better luck getting an answer than I did.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Linear Mode
