Skip to comments.PICTURE GORGE SHOUTS SUDDEN CATACLYSM: But believing is seeing
Posted on 11/10/2009 8:45:14 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Probably you have heard the expression, Seeing is believing, but is that always true? In fact, quite often its the other way around: Believing is seeing. This is true of geology, for example. Geological evidence does not speak for itself, and so it must always be interpreted. And how we interpret that evidence is always influenced by our beliefs.
A good example of this is found on a roadside interpretive sign near the Sheep Rock Unit of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in central Oregon. This is where the John Day River flows through a water gap called Picture Gorge. Its about 300 m (1,000 ft) deep, with nearly vertical walls of basalt.
According to the standard uniformitarian interpretation, the basaltic lava flowed over this area about 16 million years ago. After that, the river slowly cut down through these lava flows over millions of years to form the gorge. But how could a river flow through a long range of hills? You would expect water to flow around.
The creationist interpretation, however, does not have these sorts of problems...
(click excerpt link for remainder plus pictures)
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Obamas blueprintStalin: Man of Steel
You want to see where this will all lead?
View this video from the web on Stalin. You won’t be able to take your eyes away.My wish would be that you would pass this on to others. As many as you can. The similarities to Obama are mind blowing
Wrong question. The entire region started to uplift about 2 million years ago. The river cut down through the basalt as the area uplifted. The same king of process created the Colorado river canyons as the Colorado Plateau uplifted, complete with entrenched meanders in the Canyonlands region - meanders typically only form in areas of low gradient - the uplift entrenched the meanders that were in place when the uplift started.
Wrong area! I would have used the example of the Columbia River Basin in eastern Washington and the huge floods from ancient Lake Missoula when the ice dam(s) failed. Pretty amazing stuff. “Ripple marks” that are 5 miles long and 100’s of feet tall. Of course doesn’t say anything about the young earth creation version, but does show that not everything in geology is gradual.
And geological science is coming around to that point of view. Especially with massive forces such as glaciation involved. However, that is not a violation of uniformitarianism as many YEC types like to claim, it just means that we are still learning about geological processes, because we haven't been studying such for very long (long as far as the Earth is concerned). We'll discover new processes going forward as well. But the new processes also happened in the past (there are records of glaciation from hundreds of millions of years ago, for example), so uniformitarianism is not violated - uniformitarianism simply states that geological processes that are happening now also happened in the past.
Interesting creationist commentary on the San Juan River here (you will have to Control F “San Juan” if you want to find it fast):
Did you know about this?...esp. the part about the bottleneck downstream of the Goosenecks region???
What a suprise, it completely ignores the documented uplift of the Colorado Plateau over the last few million years.
However, it does mean that uniformitarian geologists are being forced by the evidence to move closer and closer to catastrophism, which, as you well know, has been a creationist prediction all along.
See post 7 - you are abusing the concept of uniformitarianism to make your point.
Creationists have no problem with evidence of uplift, but they often differ on what caused the uplift, and of course the timescales involved. Having said that, you still haven’t answered my questions.
The attempted points in the link were pointless because they ignored the role of uplift.
Let’s start with the bottleneck. Did you know about that, or not?
Sorry, I read through the section about the meanders and it was bad enough. I don't waste my time with creationist pseudo-geology.
So what you’re saying is that you and the rest of the YECers have absolutely no freakin’ clue how water gaps are created.
Dang, the 200 million year claims completely ignore the problems with dating methods, and apparently anyhtign that doesn’t assume millions of years is to be labelled ‘psuedoscience’ (ah, the pesky facts about science)
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.
Very little info on this method
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating