|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 46 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,609 Year: 931/6,935 Month: 212/719 Week: 0/204 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: But I would say, concerning the canopy theory, which I haven't studied and don't argue one way or the other, that I don't trust any opinion that depends on calculations about basic physics in the distant past, which couldn't possibly be checked How can you say that when all of your arguments rest on those same basic physical interactions? Basic physics state that when an animal walks on mud it will leave tracks. Are you saying that you have to throw out animals making tracks in the past? Basic physics states that terrestrial animals can't breathe underwater, and your entire argument rests on this concept. Basic physics says that eroded rock in water will settle out and form sediments. Do you also have to throw this out? It seems to me that you only reject basic physics when it leads to conclusions you don't like. It is a complete double standard. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It seems to me that you only reject basic physics when it leads to conclusions you don't like. It is a complete double standard.
Hyperskepticism is seldom applied to one's own viewpoint. In fact, probably never.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
deleted
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
the cause of it I suppose enormous quantities of water pouring through spaces in and between the strata as the water receded Groundwater doesn't rush like surface water. The pore spaces are tiny, the route is convoluted, and therefore friction is enormously high compared to surface flow. Groundwater moves in inches per hour in sand and fractions of an inch per day in clay. If the water surface was above the ground level as in a receding flood, all the flow would be along the ground surface and none through the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The fossilization isn't the notable thing; fossilization merely allows them to be preserved. The notable thing is that they are burrows; they reveal the life of creatures in the past. These creatures made burrows in soft soil, not rock. This took months, not seconds. But if the Flood were depositing the thousands of feet of sediment and quickly compressing it to rock at the rate that YECs claim, there is simply not enough time for this to occur.
A little google search turned up this diagram that shows different burrow types related to position in various water depths and various shoreline types.
With this and many other evidences for an old earth, the notable thing is not simply evidence for age, but also evidence for history. We see evidence of how things happened; evidence for a sequence of events in the past. And we know that this sequence required time to occur.
Just a little more support for the idea that there are no truly 'unlivable landscapes'. The lower part of the diagram shows water depth (the water colored blue) and the upper part of the diagram shows a coastline with different types of shorelines (sandy, rocky, etc.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Groundwater doesn't rush like surface water. The pore spaces are tiny, the route is convoluted, and therefore friction is enormously high compared to surface flow. Groundwater moves in inches per hour in sand and fractions of an inch per day in clay.
Here is an article to reinforce your point: If the water surface was above the ground level as in a receding flood, all the flow would be along the ground surface and none through the ground. Creation Science Articles, We've Done Rivers, Let's Do Canyons, Glenn
Morton It provides this seismic image of a dendritic drainage pattern formed and buried in the early Paleozoic in China, now situated 5000 meters below the modern surface. I believe that Glennn had referenced this article at some point in the past.
The argument is pretty compelling for anyone who has worked in the field. Mainly, it states that to carve such a valley in limestone would take an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint. The other main point is that these patterns are recognized ONLY in subaerial environments. We do not see them in marine environments nor in karst (cave) systems. You are correct that groundwater flow is normally exceedingly slow compared to the surface. There are karst systems that can move a lot of water quickly, but they are entirely controlled by fracture systems that can be mapped and look more like a trellis pattern. My last point is that if a supposed underground river valley widens upward (which seismic data shows), it would ultimately be impossible to support a roof. Ergo, the valley has to be formed under the sky and then filled in later to form part of the geological record. This is, of course, in opposition to Faith's suggested origin of buried valleys. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13137 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
14174dm writes: The pore spaces are tiny, the route is convoluted, and therefore friction is enormously high compared to surface flow. I'm following through on my earlier expressed desires for a discussion based upon evidence. Faith asserts that channels exist in buried strata through which the flow of water can grow into entire river systems that cut canyons and river valleys and so forth, while you assert that only tiny pore spaces are available. Which way does the evidence point, and what is that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13137 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
edge writes: Here is an article to reinforce your point: Creation Science Articles, We've Done Rivers, Let's Do Canyons, Glenn
Morton It provides this seismic image of a dendritic drainage pattern formed and buried in the early Paleozoic in China, now situated 5000 meters below the modern surface. I believe that Glennn had referenced this article at some point in the past.
The argument is pretty compelling for anyone who has worked in the field. Mainly, it states that to carve such a valley in limestone would take an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint. I'm following through on my earlier expressed desire for a discussion based upon evidence. What is the evidence that it would take "an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint" to "carve such a valley in limestone"?
The other main point is that these patterns are recognized ONLY in subaerial environments. How do you respond to the argument that these patterns are also recognized in buried strata but merely asserted to have formed in subaerial environments?
My last point is that if a supposed underground river valley widens upward (which seismic data shows), it would ultimately be impossible to support a roof. I'd like to clarify this point. As a river descends into a river valley such as this:
The distance between the hills or mountains on each side of the river are much too far apart for a roof of rock spanning them to support itself, even if there were no burden of strata above it, which there is. For this reason no significant open cavity could ever form underground. Looking this up, the largest cave in the world, Hang Sơn Đong, is only 150 meters wide. The deepest cave in the world, Krubera Cave, extends only about 3/4 of a mile below sea level. But descriptions of karsts seem to echo precisely what Faith is arguing happened during the Flood. From Wikipedia on karsts:
quote: Besides the resemblance to subaerial river systems and the impossibility of a large roof of rock, what evidence suggests that Glenn Morton's underground canyon formed just like karsts form?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2449 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Here is a link to Glenn's old page on burrows through the "wayback machine". Some excerpts from his page are below:
quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm following through on my earlier expressed desire for a discussion based upon evidence. What is the evidence that it would take "an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint" to "carve such a valley in limestone"?
Well, first, it's fairly intuitive that streams erode slowly from our own lifetimes of observation; and it's pretty certain that this was a stream based on the morphology of the valley. But if you want an actual calculation of a downcutting rate, this reference has an example that derives a rate of for the Eel River in California:
Lb = 0.0027 ft/yr = 2.7 ft/ka = 0.8 m/ka = 0.8 mm/y http://www2.humboldt.edu/...uts/erosion_rate_calculation.pdf
How do you respond to the argument that these patterns are also recognized in buried strata but merely asserted to have formed in subaerial environments?
They are not found anywhere. If someone has an example, we could look at it. In the meantime, we actually do see these patterns existing on the modern surface.
I'd like to clarify this point. As a river descends into a river valley such as this:
The statement tells you. (image snipped) The distance between the hills or mountains on each side of the river are much too far apart for a roof of rock spanning them to support itself, even if there were no burden of strata above it, which there is. For this reason no significant open cavity could ever form underground. Looking this up, the largest cave in the world, Hang Sơn Đong, is only 150 meters wide. The deepest cave in the world, Krubera Cave, extends only about 3/4 of a mile below sea level. But descriptions of karsts seem to echo precisely what Faith is arguing happened during the Flood. From Wikipedia on karsts:
The development of karst occurs whenever acidic water starts to break down the surface of bedrock near its cracks, or bedding planes. As the bedrock (like limestone or dolostone) continues to break down, its cracks tend to get bigger. As time goes on, these fractures will become wider, and eventually, a drainage system of some sort may start to form underneath. If this underground drainage system does form, it will speed up the development of karst arrangements there because more water will be able to flow through the region. Besides the resemblance to subaerial river systems and the impossibility of a large roof of rock, what evidence suggests that Glenn Morton's underground canyon formed just like karsts form? The dissolution of limestone occurs along fractures, therefor the conduits tend to follow fracture directions in the rock and not a dendritic or meandering pattern that we see in the seismic data presented earlier. Here is a map of an underground 'river'
This is Lechugilla Cave in New Mexico. In the next image I have presented some preferred directions for dissolution caused by a fracture system.
This is not a dendritic pattern, but a trellis pattern. That would be obvious to most people, but I'm sure that there will be some dissent on this forum. So, the conclusion is that, if we see a dendritic or meandering drainage pattern it was not formed underground as per the YEC scenario that we are discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13137 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thanks for the response, I need to followup on one thing:
edge writes: How do you respond to the argument that these patterns are also recognized in buried strata but merely asserted to have formed in subaerial environments?
They are not found anywhere. If someone has an example, we could look at it. In the meantime, we actually do see these patterns existing on the modern surface. I was thinking of Glenn Morton's example:
This is the familiar river pattern we see everywhere above ground, except that in this case it's in buried strata. What is the evidence that it actually formed in a subaerial environment and was only subsequently buried, as opposed to forming after being deeply buried.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I was thinking of Glenn Morton's example:
Yes, this is a dendritic drainage pattern. The fact that it is dendritic indicates that it was formed subaerially, as per my previous post. This is the familiar river pattern we see everywhere above ground, except that in this case it's in buried strata. What is the evidence that it actually formed in a subaerial environment and was only subsequently buried, as opposed to forming after being deeply buried. We simply do not see this pattern developed underground. The other points apply as well. In fact, this is a clearer example of a dendritic drainage pattern, younger than the earlier one, IIRC; but still buried under later sediments. ABE: Do you understand what I mean by 'dendritic'? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
I'm no expert and no more than a layman at geology and geography, but the way I see it, the dendritic pattern is a natural consequence of water flowing down from the hills into a river. It makes sense for rainwater flowing over a surface, from the high points down to the low.
Underground, water is still going to try to flow down, through a path of least resistance - and that means flowing through cracks in the rock. And it is not very likely to appear at multiple unconnected points, either. Even assuming the reverse direction is unhelpful, since you would need the cracks to follow the dendritic pattern, - I see no reason why they should - and raise the issue of where the water went. Now Faith's scenario complicates things a bit by assuming that we don't have rock yet. But that is not going to help the pattern and it is going to make any channel collapse much more easily.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13137 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Oh, sure, I know what 'dendritic' means, but I think I see a circularity in your argument:
I know you said that "The other points apply as well," but this argument about underground river systems has come up before in multiple threads, and in this latest incarnation I'd like to make sure that geology's position is made absolutely clear. To that end I'd like to see the "other points" woven together with the point about dendritic patterns. I'll attempt this one myself, but I don't want to make too much a habit of making arguments as moderator. River systems only form subaerially over long time periods because:
Please correct/expand as necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Oh, sure, I know what 'dendritic' means, but I think I see a circularity in your argument:
Mmmm, no. Dendritic patterns only form subaerially. We know this because we do not find dendritic patterns underground. If we do find dendritic patterns underground, see point 1. We do not see such patterns that formed underground. We see them underground, but not necessarily formed underground. If you find one that is formed underground we should look at the data.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025