Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:26 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Valles Marineris - How do young earthers explain ancient geology on other planets?
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 30 (551555)
03-23-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
03-04-2010 2:26 AM


Last-Thursdayism comes to mind.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 03-04-2010 2:26 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 17 of 30 (551559)
03-23-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
03-23-2010 1:56 AM


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.

I think I've drawn the line.

If God necessarily had to give the Earth certain appearances of age when he magicked it into being, then you're OK.

But when you have to suppose that God might have gratuitously given the Earth an appearance of age, and species the appearance of evolution, for no apparent reason except to screw with scientists, then that's omphalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 03-23-2010 1:56 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 03-23-2010 1:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 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 responded

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 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 yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 20 of 30 (551870)
03-24-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
03-23-2010 1:37 PM


Re: The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
slevesque writes:

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.)

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.

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.

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.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 03-23-2010 1:37 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 03-25-2010 1:49 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 30 (551894)
03-25-2010 2:48 AM


A hit from outer space?
Kind of looks to me like something hit the planet and skidded along for a while, or many somethings or a something that broke into pieces. Meteors usually hit straight on of course, thanks to gravity pulling them in, and leave those characteristic craters, but still, maybe a really big one hit and parts of it slid across the surface to dig a canyon. Looks to me like that anyway. At one end of the canyon those shallow serpentine tracks suggest that small pieces of the something skittered hither and thither.

The canyon doesn't look like it was caused by a cracking of the surface. Certainly doesn't look anything like the Grand Canyon close up.

Anyway, something like that would be a pretty cataclysmic and not long term event.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-25-2010 8:43 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 30 (551896)
03-25-2010 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Meldinoor
03-04-2010 4:04 PM


Re: Do we have any YECs willing to put forth an hypothesis?
I don't know how I missed this post when I tossed off my answer. I think that YEC answer you quote makes sense, although I don't see where water comes into the picture or HAS to come into the picture. It certainly makes sense that meteor hits could trigger volcanism. It's quite clear as a matter of fact that this is what must have happened on the moon, where meteor craters appear to have filled with black lava, no doubt released by the impact itself.

I still think that valley on Mars looks like a big scar, a gash brought about by something external that hit it, not something brought about at ground level.

For reference: picture of the Valle Marineris

Edited by Faith, : to add picture


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Meldinoor, posted 03-04-2010 4:04 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 23 of 30 (551919)
03-25-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
03-25-2010 2:48 AM


Re: A hit from outer space?
Faith writes:

Meteors usually hit straight on of course, thanks to gravity pulling them in, and leave those characteristic craters...

Meteors rarely hit straight on. The inevitably circular craters result from the release of energy from the collision which far surpasses any sideways kinetic energy that the meteor might contribute.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-25-2010 2:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-25-2010 10:25 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 30 (551927)
03-25-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
03-25-2010 8:43 AM


Re: A hit from outer space?
Good to know, thanks, beyond my knowledge of physics. So much for my theory.

What about the theory posted earlier that a huge meteor hit caused a volcano on the exact opposite side of the planet from the impact?

(I don't get the other part of that theory myself, whatever they think created the valley at yet another location, or the idea that water was somehow involved)

And by the way, thank you for allowing me back at EvC, Percy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-25-2010 8:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 03-25-2010 10:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 03-25-2010 11:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 25 of 30 (551929)
03-25-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
03-25-2010 10:25 AM


Welcome Back
Was your suspension lift announced somewhere else? I hate to respond here OT but I have to say welcome back.

For better or worse, the debates we had together have shaped my life (likely not in the direction you would have chosen) but it is good to see you back here. I hope you are doing well.


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-25-2010 10:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 26 of 30 (551934)
03-25-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
03-25-2010 10:25 AM


Re: A hit from outer space?
Welcome back, Faith. Nice to see you again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-25-2010 10:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 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 yet responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 30 (551964)
03-25-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by slevesque
03-25-2010 1:49 PM


Re: The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
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.

This is all true. It is the characteristics of the canyon/valley that indicate the length of the process be it by catastrophic flooding (e.g. Channeled Scablands) or through millions of years of erosion (e.g Grand Canyon).

As to the Valles Marineris, we are probably looking at the result of tectonic activity. One of the theories that attempts to explain the Valles Marineris is called Collapse Theory:

"The collapse model for the creation of Valles Marineris however does provide an initiating event. In this process best described by Schultz (1991), fractures attributed to the Tharsis stress field unsteadies the area in question. Subsidence and collapse then occur from ground water/ice retreating and/or magma withdrawal. Macroscopic observations would show this starting out with the formation of pit craters, resulting from internal collapsing, and having them slowly grow, merging with other pit chains, eventually forming troughs as they are seen today. However, even Schultz makes the point that pit craters and chains are structurally and morphologically different from large troughs, implying that other processes may be at work."
http://www.spaceman.ca/vm/report.php?Section=5

Also, the geology of Mars can tell us a lot about what happens to planets when they cool. Given the very weak magnetic field on Mars it is very likely that its core has frozen solid. Mons Olympus and Valles Marineris may very well be the result of Mars freezing solid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 03-25-2010 1:49 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 03-25-2010 4:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 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 yet responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 30 of 30 (556308)
04-19-2010 2:28 AM


Meldinoor writes:

Considering that the planet does not have an atmosphere allowing liquid water, and does not have significant tectonic or volcanic activity, one would be hard pressed to suppose that cataclysmic events on Mars could have caused so much planetary scarring in such short time,

http://www.nasa.gov/...oddard/news/releases/2010/10-021.html

Interesting article from NASA on this topic. Looks like a volcanic eruption is at least responsible for SOME of the geography on Mars, although scientists haven't ruled out water over time producing some of it either. I don't have much of an opinion at this time one way or another but this article is interesting.


    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019