The San Andreas Fault: Randy Berg's evidence for YEC

Since Randy is so eager to discuss his evidence for YEC, I thought I’d tackle this one - mainly because it's a good way to learn a little more about that part of the SA. In fact, it was rather hard choosing a topic because there was so much misinformation that it would take months to address them all. Mind you it's just a quick and dirty summary. Others please feel free to add your knowledge/expertise and/or correct any of my mistakes.The following is YEC evidence #15 - The San Andreas Fault:From Randy's website: earthage.org

quote:

---

15. The San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 82 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.83 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;84 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 85 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.

​

One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 86 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This suggests that this fault is quite young--on the order of a few thousand years old. See also Continental Drift.

---

-----------Randy asked the question: How long has it been moving?
And then answer with a distance of tens to hundreds of miles. Two different things!First, how long?According to current research, the fault is approximately 15 — 20 million years old. This is based on rock associations, sediment studies, trench studies, dating, etc.How far?Matching up similar rocks on either side of the fault, displacement is anywhere between 125 miles to 350 miles. And this depends on which part of the system you are looking at. Randy makes the mistake of assuming displacement is constant along the entire system. This is not true. Although there is a fault called the San Andreas, it is better described as a fault system. There are hundreds of faults that splay off the San Andreas and each other, as well as faults that are buried (i.e., Northridge). So just because an earthquake in the Los Angeles area resulted in 2 inch or 20 foot displacement, doesn’t mean that displacement occurred along the entire system up to Pt. Reyes.The granites.Since Randy doesn’t name the granites, I suspect he's referring to the tonalities and granodiorites found on the Pt. Reyes Peninsula. Randy’s map, which in fact is NOT a geologic map, shows Tomales Bluff, Sand Point, and Toms Point. For a real geologic map see HERE (in PDF format) and for rock descriptions, see HERE (also PDF format). Pt. Reyes is at the top of the map. The geologic map shows both bedrock and surficial units.Looking at the geologic map, one can see that the bedrock west of the SAF consists of tonalities and granodiorites, along with some conglomeratic units nonconformably overlying the granitic rocks. In fact, these granites make up 90% of the rocks down to Tomales Beach. So Randy’s statement of a few granite outcrops is misleading. According to Robert M. Reed, Ph.D., Structural Geologist, the granitic rocks appear to be of the same composition as those at Monterey, CA. However, many researchers believe they were ultimately brought in from further south.I’m not sure what Randy is saying about the granites either being igneous or metamorphic. It’s generally not that difficult to tell the difference between an igneous rock and a metamorphic rock, especially through the use of petrographic microscopes. The granites in the Pt. Reyes area contain metamorphic xenoliths, so perhaps that is what he is referring to. Additionally, Randy doesn’t seem to know the difference between volcanic and plutonic rocks as the following statement illustrates:

quote:

---

If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.

---

Granite is NEVER EVER EVER of volcanic origin. It is a plutonic rock that was emplaced, cooled, and solidified beneath the surface of the earth. The volcanic equivalent of granite is rhyolite. So no, granite would NEVER have come straight out of the ground as Randy states.Displacement at Sand and Toms Points, and Lagunitas Creek.Since Randy doesn’t show a map of Lagunitas Creek, I cannot comment, though I have seen the hydrographic map (HERE). However I don’t really know what Randy is referring to. That area is too complicated for me to even make an educated guess as to the hydrologic history of the area. And I'm reluctant to trust Randy's opinion seeing as he confuses volcanic with plutonic. Perhaps Randy can elaborate on this.With respect to Sand Point and Toms Point, if you look at the geologic map I linked to earlier (HERE (in PDF format)), the reader will notice that the ground for those two areas is composed of Quaternary sediments characterized by sand dunes, terrace gravels, landslide deposits, and alluvium - all of which are rather young and unconsolidated. In fact, the ocean is continually reshaping those points, so anyone would be hard-pressed to see any displacement at the scale of Randy’s map. Not to mention there hasn’t been any significant movement since 1906 in that particular area. Scaling down in size, however, to outcrop size, I suspect the Millerton Formation has a lot to offer with respect to displacement evidence.What Randy does in fact illustrate is his picking and choosing of data that supports his position. Looking at the entire geologic map of the Point Reyes area (HERE (in PDF format)), one can easily see how different the rocks are east of the SAF compared to the west. On the west are granites and on the east, the Franciscan Complex - two completely different units.THAT is the scale of the displacement, Randy. And for small scale evidence, look at the road from Inverness to Pt. Reyes was offset by almost 21 feet, the maximum offset recorded. A photo showing a fence offset: Forbidden. This sort of stuff doesn’t show up on a large-scale map.I could probably go on as other could as well, however, I’ve ran out of time here. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-26-2004 12:48 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

given the propensity for water to take the easiest path to lower levels, it would be surprising indeed if any creek retained an old route after substantial shifting by geological fault shift. there are several instances of new paths being made.creeks are also known to change their routing without such help, so this should not be any indicator of age problems.is this Randy Berg posting here? (what nick?)his #11 is another old bogus piece of non-science: the levels of C14 fluctuate up and down so any trend does not mean anything about how old the earth is or isn't.there are several others (helium levels, moon recession, yada yada) that are debunked on many other sites, and regurgitating them without addressing these other refutations (or even acknowledging them) is dishonest at the least, but that is not a big surprise, eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

his #4 is almost humorous in it's pathetic attempts to draw attention away from the fact that there are plenty of overlapping specimens of older (but dead) trees whose matching tree rings make the claim bogus about the immediate ancestors (this is like saying that the earth is only 120 years old because the oldest living human is only 120 and all the older ones are mystereously dead): For this to be true there would have to be a singularity discontinuity in the tree ring data -- all after the "mystery date" growing after it, all before it dying on the "mystery date" -- and there is no such discontinuity.as mentioned on Age Correlations and an Old Earth
(http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth)
the minimum age (ie -- extent of continuous tree ring data) is 8,000 years for the bristlecone pine and 10,000 years for the european oak.this is part of a continuous set of evidence for an older earth.looks like another list of YEC lies to me.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I suspect Randy was attempting to show a creek (which one I don't know) that crosses the SAF, but that shows no displacement. Meaning there has been no movement onthe SAF.Randy is/was posting in the "Soracilla defends the flood?" thread as RandyB. He has asked several times that we visit his website.See, I told you there was so much to choose from.Happen to read the Continental Drift stuff? Apparently there is no evidence of spreading at the mid-ocean ridges.Anyways, that's perhaps better for another thread.

so where is he? the gauntlet is down, eh?

Randy tends to disappear when he feels he's losing...

I think we would be better off without messages such as numbers 6 and 7. As I see it, they are mild violations of forum rule 3, and they also off-topic. Forum Rule 3: Respect for others is the rule here.Bottom line: Let's be nice to others.Wish to reply to this (off-topic) admin interjection? Please take it to the "Change in Moderation?" topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

Sorry, I guess I should follow my own advice...