Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Valles Marineris - How do young earthers explain ancient geology on other planets?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 5 of 30 (549278)
03-05-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
03-04-2010 2:26 AM


I don't know a lot about martian geology, but I don't see how the Valles Marineris ''require'' long periods of time. Or how it is ''seemingly ancient''. Maybe there is something I am missing about it that requires it to take a long time to form.
Anyways, of the little I know about mars, I once stumbled upon the subject of a giant flood on mars. Link of the CNN article (2001) about it:
http://archives.cnn.com/...ce/08/03/mars.channels/index.html
They talk about possibly multiple events of catastrophic floods on the planet. It becomes difficult to date such events or even establish for sure if they ever happened. With still a lot of question marks about mars, it becomes difficult to rule out a recent formation for the Valles Marineris I suppose.
But as I said, I know very little about the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 03-04-2010 2:26 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 03-12-2010 6:25 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 7 of 30 (550720)
03-17-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Meldinoor
03-12-2010 6:25 PM


Want me to respond to that or are you still at work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 03-12-2010 6:25 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 03-17-2010 5:19 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 30 (550835)
03-18-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Meldinoor
03-12-2010 6:25 PM


First of all, we have to agree that there is evidence pointing to 'cataclysmic events' as you call them, as per the link I gave earlier. In other words, the causes you will attribute to the geologic formation you point out will probably be the same as I do . The issue then is how long ago did this occur.
This becomes difficult to analyse since mars is far and so limited testing has been done. But as you said, for liquid water to be we need an atmosphere. And of course this brings two questions:
1- What is the minimal atmospheric pressure required for liquid water to exist.
2- Since there is little atmosphere left around mars, how much time would it take for this atmosphere to go off into space ?
I know 6000 years doesn't seem like a lot when we are used with millions and billions, but it still is a shitload of time and before saying it isn't long enough for the atmosphere of to go away, we would have to do the calculations.
I have looked for the equations for this but haven't found them. Unfortunetely, from what I understand of the problem, it requires some knowledge of statistics and thermodynamics, two subjects which I have yet to encounter at university (hopefully next year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, I have to ask what is the difference between a valley and a plain for example that makes the valley become a sign of long ages ? For all I know, a plain is formed by gigantic ice sheets which also take a rather long time to form and melt.
What I'm saying is that every geological feature in a naturalistic point of view is sign of great age. Heck, the planet is sign of a load of time since by natural means, it probably takes more then a couple millions years to form.
In other words, how is a canyon different from a valley, a plain, a planet, a sun in terms of being a sign of long age ? If I say God created the sun, does it become omphalism because it takes a billion years for a hydrogen cloud to collapse and become a sun ?
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 03-12-2010 6:25 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-18-2010 5:26 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 14 of 30 (551551)
03-23-2010 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
03-18-2010 5:26 PM


So is there any clear line to be drawn ? I mean, you are the ones who are gonna tag such and such a statement as either omphalism or not, and so you should have at least some criteria's as to why some thing would be or not be.
How is a canyon sign of great age and not a planet ? Or a mountain ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-18-2010 5:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 3:02 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 30 (551637)
03-23-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by anglagard
03-23-2010 2:10 AM


Re: The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
The very fact that you are saying thi tells me you do not understand the nature of my question, either because you didn't ttake the time or because it isn't written clearly enough on my part.
But I'll add some comments to what you said, since it will help in the discussion.
You say geology tells us that a valley is a sign of great age, but of course this is not necessarily true. Only if you impose a very strict notion of uniformitarianism on geology will you come to this conclusion, as was done in the beginning of the century. Fortunately, because of the work of pioneers such as J Harlen Bretz (damn fame-seeking contrarians ) this view has changed. And I think you will now agree with me that canyon = great age isn't applicable in geology anymore, as other processes can give this featue in a short time (glaciers and massive flooding are two examples that come to mind.)
Perhaps you should consider learning about geology and its many subfields from actual geologists and experts in the subfields instead of a few fame-seeking contrarians.
Otherwise, your objectiveness in the pursuit of knowledge may come under some question.
I find this last portions very ironic. n the first part you label two categories of people. ''actual geologists and experts'' and ''fame-seeking contrarians''. Of course, would I ask you the notable difference between them the major thing that would come out would be that the second group are christians and more specifically, YEC. Two distinctions that are not related to their level of education, which should be the criteria to differentiate between a geologist and a none-geologist.
The irony comes, then, when you question my own objectivity just after making a huge prejudice right before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2010 9:16 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 30 (551639)
03-23-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2010 3:02 AM


Ok. We'll maybe redefine some fine-points eventually as we encounter them.
In other words, for a feature to be tagged omphalism if it were to be created, a case must be made that the feature in question would make God Malicious.
So returning to the OP, Meldinoor would have to just why the Valles Marineris ''seem to have required long periods of time to form''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 3:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 27 of 30 (551958)
03-25-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
03-24-2010 9:16 PM


Re: The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Canyons usually do indeed take a great deal of time in general as shown by incised meanders. They leave obvious differences which can be seen by anyone in comparison to a flood caused canyon such as evident near the potholes in Washington. In addition, U-shaped valleys, such as the mile deep Yosemite took some time longer than any 40 days to carve out, unless magic ice is involved.
My point was that valley = great age isn't a good geological equation as you yourself give an example of a valley formed by a flood. I'm sure you agree with this, since you gave an example of a canyone where this wasn't the case. And this was the only point I wanted to make. The rest about the 40days etc. is just a Red Herring, since it refers to a particular case here on earth when in fact we are discussing the Valles Marineris on mars.
But of course, what are the long-age explanations for the Valles Marineris ? No one as yet to give an explanation of how they formed, and of course if they want to descredit recent formation, they have to show how it is impossible that this happened in the past 6k years.
Bu fame-seeking contrarians, I mean the geology experts the YECs favor such as the criminal Hovind, who along with the con-artist Baugh, claim phony credentials; the overt 'sons of Ham' racist Morris; the RATE 'boys' who admit they are wrong in the end; and the befuddled Baumgardner who can't find any plausible mechanism for the Detroit Muscle car speeds of his physically impossible tectonic plate hypotheses.
A fine lot indeed. The very definition of objectivity.
Your very description of them is full of objectivity, that's for sure ... (although I agree about hovind and baugh)
YECism is against all of the findings of geology, including every subfield as I have pointed out in detail on several occasions. What possible purpose can their be in discussing the geology of other planets if one is dead set against all the empirical findings of geology on this planet?
As for your claim of objectivity, what I see is Morton's Demon.
So you're accusing me of Morton's Demon ???? You'll have to show me where I filtered any information in this thread because I can't accept the accusation, and would like of you to take it back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2010 9:16 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-25-2010 2:01 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 30 (551986)
03-25-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
03-25-2010 2:01 PM


Re: The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Ok, so if the Valles Marineris were formed by tectonic activity, then the OP comparison with grand canyon and slow erosion+long ages isn't really true. It then doesn't really come as a difficulty for a recent creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-25-2010 2:01 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024