- Sep 19, 2004
- 1,241
- 83
- 75
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I was asked by a guy named Kerry about why one should change his interpretation from young-earth creationism. I will link to the pictures. I don't yet have enough posts here to be allowed to upload pics, so I will refer people to the pics on my web page
First, there are subaerial canyons carved into buried rocks. We see these on 3 dimensional seismic data we collect. 3d seismic is like a sonogram of the earth, only better. The first picture is of a dendritic incised canyon found underneath the Mahakam Delta, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Such features only form under subaerial conditions, not under water at all. Underwater canyons don't have that sharply dendritic pattern. It is from Alistair R. Brown, Interpretation of Three-Dimensional Seismic Data, AAPG Memoir 42, 1999, p. 115
Why were subaerial canyons dug during the middle of the global flood? Or is this another case like Samuel Shenton, the leader of the flat earth society who said when shown photos of the round earth from the moon: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canyonTW.jpg
Such a feature would require time to erode and move the rock. The channels have to 'eat' their way back. One can point to canyons which erode rapidly, but they can't fit into a one year erosional period and if they can't do that, they are outside the bounds of a one year global flood explanation.
Deltas found buried. Discovered by mapping the sands.
The attached photo is an isopach map of the Booch Sandstone of Pennsylvanian age from NE Oklahoma. An isopach map is a thickness map. The thickness of the channel sand was mapped over a 2000 square mile area. (each square is 6 miles by six miles). The resulting map shows a delta much like the delta of the Mississippi River, only this one is buried in the geologic column by hundreds of feet of sediment. The rivers which fed it are long gone, but they left their characteristic depositional pattern in the geologic column.
Deltas only form in times like today, when there isn't catastrophic deposition. One needs confined channelized flow of water, which preferentially deposits the sand in the channel and the shale either flows on into the sea or is sent into the overbanks and interdistributary areas. This takes lots of time. In the past 3000 years, the Mississippi River has switched outlets 7 times. This is not too dissimilar to what we see in the Booch Delta. There are 7 different channel outlets
The picture of this delta was originally published in 1959, eleven years prior to when Morris published the Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science. In that book, he tells his readers about how rapidly deltas can form.
for the pic see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/boochdeltaOKtw.jpg
Henry says:
"(5) Phenomena of Stratification. Not only do the fossils contained in the sedimentary strata demonstrate the necessity of catastrophic deposition, but the very strata themselves indicate this. As already noted, most of the earth's surface is covered with sediments or sedimentary rocks, originally deposited under moving water. This in itself is prima facie evidence that powerful waters once covered the earth. Furthermore, as already mentioned, even under modern conditions most sedimentary deposits are the result of brief, intense periods of flood run?off, rather than slow uniform silting."
"Laboratory evidence that a typical sedimentary deposit may form quite rapidly is found in the work of Alan Jopling at Harvard, who made a long series of studies on delta-type deposition in a laboratory flume and then applied the results to the analysis of a small delta outwash deposit supposedly formed about 13,000 years ago. His conclusion was as follows:
'It may be concluded therefore that the time required for the deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days. . . Based on the computed rate of delta advance and the thickness of the individual laminae, the average time for the deposition of a lamina must have been several minutes.' Alan V. Jopling, ""Some Principles and Techniques used in Reconstructing the Hydraulic Parameters of a Paleoflow Regime,"", Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36:1, (March, 1966), p. 34, cited by Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1970), p. 104.
What he doesn't tell his readers, who are obviously thinking about the Mississippi Delta is that Jopling's delta is 20 feet long and 1 foot deep!
Jopling actually writes,
"It may be concluded, therefore, that the time required for the
deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days. .
." Jopling, p. 34
How big was the delta?
""The thickness of the deposit ranges from 12 to 16 inches depending
on the irregularities of the basin floor." Jopling, p. 17
It was 20 feet long. Jopling, p. 17
""Potter and Pettijohn (1962) would probably classify the deposit as
microdelta."" p. 17
~ Alan V. Jopling, ""Some Principles and their techniques used in
Reconstructing the Hydraulic Parameters of a Paleo-flow Regime,""
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology , 36:1, 1966, p. 5-49
And from this, Morris extrapolates that there is no problem with delta-formation in the flood!!!! How sad! How dissembling.
This is my favorite YEC extrapolation from data. Henry Morris takes a lab experiment and extrapolates it out to 'delta-type deposits' and doesn't tell readers a very important piece of information.
Trails of tiny animals.
It is very difficult to deposit a trail. A trail must be made on the surface of the rock and then covered. One can't pick it up and redeposit it. Yet we find trails and tracks of animals throughout the entire geologic column. See
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/TrackCambrianAnnelidWorm.jpg
And for a thorough discussion of tracks see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/tracks.htm
There is a lot, lot more where this comes from. Geology is just full of data that screams 'YEC is wrong.' As I said on that other thread, the tension I felt from the the facts I see every day at work vs what my YEC teachers were teaching me almost drove me to atheism. Indeed, I know lots and lots of atheists who are former YECs. To me, the fastest path to atheism is through YEC followed by a course in the geosciences.
First, there are subaerial canyons carved into buried rocks. We see these on 3 dimensional seismic data we collect. 3d seismic is like a sonogram of the earth, only better. The first picture is of a dendritic incised canyon found underneath the Mahakam Delta, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Such features only form under subaerial conditions, not under water at all. Underwater canyons don't have that sharply dendritic pattern. It is from Alistair R. Brown, Interpretation of Three-Dimensional Seismic Data, AAPG Memoir 42, 1999, p. 115
Why were subaerial canyons dug during the middle of the global flood? Or is this another case like Samuel Shenton, the leader of the flat earth society who said when shown photos of the round earth from the moon: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canyonTW.jpg
Such a feature would require time to erode and move the rock. The channels have to 'eat' their way back. One can point to canyons which erode rapidly, but they can't fit into a one year erosional period and if they can't do that, they are outside the bounds of a one year global flood explanation.
Deltas found buried. Discovered by mapping the sands.
The attached photo is an isopach map of the Booch Sandstone of Pennsylvanian age from NE Oklahoma. An isopach map is a thickness map. The thickness of the channel sand was mapped over a 2000 square mile area. (each square is 6 miles by six miles). The resulting map shows a delta much like the delta of the Mississippi River, only this one is buried in the geologic column by hundreds of feet of sediment. The rivers which fed it are long gone, but they left their characteristic depositional pattern in the geologic column.
Deltas only form in times like today, when there isn't catastrophic deposition. One needs confined channelized flow of water, which preferentially deposits the sand in the channel and the shale either flows on into the sea or is sent into the overbanks and interdistributary areas. This takes lots of time. In the past 3000 years, the Mississippi River has switched outlets 7 times. This is not too dissimilar to what we see in the Booch Delta. There are 7 different channel outlets
The picture of this delta was originally published in 1959, eleven years prior to when Morris published the Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science. In that book, he tells his readers about how rapidly deltas can form.
for the pic see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/boochdeltaOKtw.jpg
Henry says:
"(5) Phenomena of Stratification. Not only do the fossils contained in the sedimentary strata demonstrate the necessity of catastrophic deposition, but the very strata themselves indicate this. As already noted, most of the earth's surface is covered with sediments or sedimentary rocks, originally deposited under moving water. This in itself is prima facie evidence that powerful waters once covered the earth. Furthermore, as already mentioned, even under modern conditions most sedimentary deposits are the result of brief, intense periods of flood run?off, rather than slow uniform silting."
"Laboratory evidence that a typical sedimentary deposit may form quite rapidly is found in the work of Alan Jopling at Harvard, who made a long series of studies on delta-type deposition in a laboratory flume and then applied the results to the analysis of a small delta outwash deposit supposedly formed about 13,000 years ago. His conclusion was as follows:
'It may be concluded therefore that the time required for the deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days. . . Based on the computed rate of delta advance and the thickness of the individual laminae, the average time for the deposition of a lamina must have been several minutes.' Alan V. Jopling, ""Some Principles and Techniques used in Reconstructing the Hydraulic Parameters of a Paleoflow Regime,"", Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36:1, (March, 1966), p. 34, cited by Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1970), p. 104.
What he doesn't tell his readers, who are obviously thinking about the Mississippi Delta is that Jopling's delta is 20 feet long and 1 foot deep!
Jopling actually writes,
"It may be concluded, therefore, that the time required for the
deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days. .
." Jopling, p. 34
How big was the delta?
""The thickness of the deposit ranges from 12 to 16 inches depending
on the irregularities of the basin floor." Jopling, p. 17
It was 20 feet long. Jopling, p. 17
""Potter and Pettijohn (1962) would probably classify the deposit as
microdelta."" p. 17
~ Alan V. Jopling, ""Some Principles and their techniques used in
Reconstructing the Hydraulic Parameters of a Paleo-flow Regime,""
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology , 36:1, 1966, p. 5-49
And from this, Morris extrapolates that there is no problem with delta-formation in the flood!!!! How sad! How dissembling.
This is my favorite YEC extrapolation from data. Henry Morris takes a lab experiment and extrapolates it out to 'delta-type deposits' and doesn't tell readers a very important piece of information.
Trails of tiny animals.
It is very difficult to deposit a trail. A trail must be made on the surface of the rock and then covered. One can't pick it up and redeposit it. Yet we find trails and tracks of animals throughout the entire geologic column. See
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/TrackCambrianAnnelidWorm.jpg
And for a thorough discussion of tracks see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/tracks.htm
There is a lot, lot more where this comes from. Geology is just full of data that screams 'YEC is wrong.' As I said on that other thread, the tension I felt from the the facts I see every day at work vs what my YEC teachers were teaching me almost drove me to atheism. Indeed, I know lots and lots of atheists who are former YECs. To me, the fastest path to atheism is through YEC followed by a course in the geosciences.
