From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 23:28:50 EDT
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:59:36 -0500 "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@chartermi.net> writes:
Persons interested in this topic may be interested in reading Davis
Young's chapter, "Making Mysteries out of Missing Rock" in Science Held
Hostage (IVP, 1988) pp. 93-124.
Given what I have recently learned about paraconformities, this was an
interesting read. Young's use of "geologists" to describe scientists who
agree with him, and his use of "scientific creationists" to describe
those who take the YEC view is a bit irritating, tipping his hand to what
I, as a geologist, find to be an arrogant, condescending attitude.
Young's basic premise is that scientific creationists say that there is
no evidence of erosion or chemical weathering at the contact of a number
of Grand Canyon strata and therefore there can be no time break between
the strata. Young then shows that there is indeed erosion at every break
where there is a supposed time gap, and therefore scientific creationists
are ignorant and geologists are right.
I made the same statement - that there is lack of erosion and chemical
weathering at these contacts; I stand corrected. Now that we have gotten
past that point, let's look at Young's argument.
On p 107 Young states: "Scientific creationists have stated that where
the contact between Redwall and Muav or Temple Butte is exposed there is
no obvious evidence of erosion. According to geologists McKee and
Gutschick, 'At 11 of 21 localities examined, including most of those in
eastern Grand Canyon, no evidence of an erosion surface could be detected
at the contact: the surface appeared even and flat.' At the other ten
localities, however, McKee and Gutschick found evidence for erosion -
namely, the presence of shallow channels with minor relief excavated into
the upper surface of the Muav or Temple Butte. The channels are
typically filled, at least in part, by conglomerate containing angular
fragments of chert, limestone or dolomite derived from the underlying
Temple Butte or Muav Limestones. McKee and Gutschick concluded that
'removal by beveling of a considerable thickness of Devonian strata in
the eastern part of the region may be shown by the great eastward
thinning of this formation (the Temple Butte) within a short distance and
by the remnants of once-widespread Devonian strata preserved in isolated
erosion pockets in eastern Grand Canyon and in Marble Canyon.' "
So Young admits that at over half of the outcrops examined, "including
most of those in eastern Grand Canyon, no evidence of an erosion surface
could be detected at the contact: the surface appeared even and flat."
Ten other localities did show evidence of minor erosion - "shallow
channels and minor relief." So this is all of the evidence of erosion
"of a considerable thickness of Devonian strata"? I would think of
erosion that removed a considerable thickness of rock as a downcutting
process producing valleys or canyons, but McKee and Gutschick concluded
that the erosion was by beveling.
I think this use of 'bevel' means to produce an oblique cut. The
resultant planar surface cut across Devonian strata down to the top of
the Muav. Perhaps Michael or others could explain how we get this
extensive planar erosion with only "shallow channels [up to a whopping 8
feet deep according to McKee and Gutschick] and minor relief," and other
areas which show "no evidence of an erosion surface" even though they
also were exposed to erosion?
I find this data more compatible with sheet-flow erosion during a Flood
than the assumed slow and gradual erosion resulting from uplift. Surely
Michael can do better than to dismiss this data as "fleabites"???
Bill
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 23:29:01 EDT