Devils Tower: Falsification of Flood Geology

Help me out on this, this is a work in progress.

Devils tower has been determined to have most likely been formed as an intrusion into existing sedimentary rocks and then these rocks eroded away. The formation that makes the top of the tower cuts down through the existing sedimentary rock that still exists at its base.

The formation could only have been formed as an intrusion into ROCK (not mud). If this is the case, then the sedimentary rocks would need to have been layed down, turned to rock before the intrusion. How could the following happen during a flood of a somewhat short duration and only a short time ago?

1) Sediment layers are layed down.
2) Sediment turns to solid ROCK.
3) Lava intrudes into this ROCK.
4) Lava cools (slowly based on the rock that makes up the tower) into ROCK
5) Surrounding ROCK is eroded away (900 feet of it) exposing devils tower

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, and then the flood removing this sedimentary ROCK, all in a short period of time.

What mechanism would provide for this rapid ROCK formation in a flood model?

If the formation happened post flood, what mechanism removed the ROCK surrounding it? Is there any way it could have formed post flood?



Any other details about the geology of the tower that falsify flood geology?

http://www.nps.gov/deto/geology.htm

I dunnow magic or something,

But seriously this rapid rock formation is a very big problem for YEC 'geology', i have seen several exposures (for example the budleigh pebble beds in england) that contain well rounded pebbles of rock that according to YECism was deposited less than a year before. So apparently sediment can be deposited, turned into rock, eroded, rounded and deposited again in less than a year.

Erm, calcite precitpitation in warm water, high CO2 environment?


I dunno, I had a YEC chem teacher in high school that said lime in pipes is proof that sed rocks can form rapidly.

The problem is that there are several types of sedimentary rocks that would need to form and they can't all form quickly or in the type of environment the flood model demands. Limestone would not form in a raging flood.

To explain the Devils Tower formation, we need a process that can create 900 feet of sediment, turn it into rock, wait a while while the magma cools from the intrusion, and then errode the 900 feet of sedimentary rock around it down again.

900 feet of sedimentary rock forming in a year doesn't seem very likely.

Heres an answer:


"A persistent scientific objection to the Biblical doctrine of the young earth has arisen over this issue, however, claiming that the necessary cooling time for such immense volumes of basalt would take far longer than mere thousands of years. Once again, good scientific research provides an answer, and it has to do with water.

While much heat is removed by simple conduction from the lava to the surrounding rock or air, a surprising amount of heat is removed by water. Water is present in any lava flow or intrusion, and as this superheated water flashes to steam and exits the lava, it carries much heat away with it. Furthermore, as rain or surface water penetrates to the hot layer, it too heats, turns to steam and leaves, cooling the lava. Experiments and observations have shown this convection of heat to be the key. Measured rates of cooling from the surface to the interior exceed several feet per month. The vertical joints which form the distinctive columns facilitate the migration of water in and steam out of the rock. "
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnnov03.html

here is one on basltic column formation
http://www.icr.org/research/as/igneousbodies.html

Originally Posted by napajohn

Heres an answer:


"A persistent scientific objection to the Biblical doctrine of the young earth has arisen over this issue, however, claiming that the necessary cooling time for such immense volumes of basalt would take far longer than mere thousands of years. Once again, good scientific research provides an answer, and it has to do with water.

While much heat is removed by simple conduction from the lava to the surrounding rock or air, a surprising amount of heat is removed by water. Water is present in any lava flow or intrusion, and as this superheated water flashes to steam and exits the lava, it carries much heat away with it. Furthermore, as rain or surface water penetrates to the hot layer, it too heats, turns to steam and leaves, cooling the lava. Experiments and observations have shown this convection of heat to be the key. Measured rates of cooling from the surface to the interior exceed several feet per month. The vertical joints which form the distinctive columns facilitate the migration of water in and steam out of the rock. "
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnnov03.html

here is one on basltic column formation
http://www.icr.org/research/as/igneousbodies.html

This isn't relevant. I really need to have you summarize the second site for us, napajohn, because you don't seem to understand it.

Notice that the first quote doesn't give a reference to those supposed measurements? It's nice to claim that but, as Calvin says, where is the evidence? Where do we find the experiments where the rate of cooling was supposedly measured?

The problem is that the sediments are supposed to have been laid down by the Flood. However, the fracture patterns at the base of the Tower show that the sedimentary rock was solid when the intrusion hit it. So, how did the rock get solid in time for the intrusion to hit it if the Flood was only 4,000 years ago or so? If we give the rock 1,000 years to solidify and then hit it with the intrusion, then even Snelling and Woomaroppe's cooling rates are insufficient to solidify the Tower in the less than 3,000 years we have left.

Finally, notice the erosion channels cut into the sides of the Tower. Observed erosion rates since the Flood are not sufficient to produce that much erosion in 3,000 years. And you can't use the Flood because the Flood had to be over before the Tower intruded into the rocks.

__________________
"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

"This isn't relevant. I really need to have you summarize the second site for us, napajohn, because you don't seem to understand it. "

Look Lucaspa I'm not a geologist but i have seen the catastrophic remnants incurred in Mt St Helens...in a span of weeks the geologic columns that are found in the Grand Canyon was etched out...Please get a book by Steve Austin or his video on Mt St helens..unless he is blatantly lying or using photoshop..one can only be convinced about the sudden columnar creations that was created by the Mt st helens eruption....your quetions are due to the assumption of uniformitarian ideas that layers and rock formation is created by eons of time..get his book or video..here I've given you a link to one of Austins articles:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

None of the Mt. St. Helens disaster occourences have much to do with the specific thread of why the Flood could not have caused D.T. An unrelated link that has no bearing on the thread or OP topic. Discuss specifically why D.T could have been made by the flood by direct evidence of certain geologic formations created through a flood mechanism.

__________________
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34

"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking

How much of the debris or sediment from Mount St. Helens has turned to ROCK. Until it does (several thousand years from now), it is hardly an analogy to other sedimentary ROCK formations.

"How much of the debris or sediment from Mount St. Helens has turned to ROCK. Until it does (several thousand years from now), it is hardly an analogy to other sedimentary ROCK formations"...

Gee i guess you are going to have to explain the whale fossil buruied in Lompoc Ca in diatomite using your uniformatiarian geology:

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling6.html