Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:44 pm

Probably not new as such, but there seems to be a disturbingly coherently supported push across creationist geology to revise the geology of the Grand Canyon, from Snelling's usual AiG tat up to this:
Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA)
John H. Whitmore and Ray Strom
Sedimentary Geology
Volume 230, Issues 1-2, 1 October 2010, Pages 46-59
If anyone is desperate to read this let me know...
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:39 pm

jon_12091 wrote:Probably not new as such, but there seems to be a disturbingly coherently supported push across creationist geology to revise the geology of the Grand Canyon, from Snelling's usual AiG tat up to this:
Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA)
John H. Whitmore and Ray Strom
Sedimentary Geology
Volume 230, Issues 1-2, 1 October 2010, Pages 46-59
If anyone is desperate to read this let me know...


What! The creationists have got a paper into a peer reviewed journal?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby Michael » Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:46 pm

There is very little about injectites , for which there are several suggested causes, that impinge on deep time, so it is a safe subject for a YEC
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:25 pm

Yes, that will teach me for saying 'I hope they don't find out about injectites'! Whitemore's paper, barring a single paragraph, is actually a rather uncontroversial piece of field-based geology. Basically there is a yawning chasm between this paper and the usual rantings of Snelling & Garner etc. Though I suspect we can look forward to being beaten around the head by 'injectites' for awhile by their latest fans.

Creationist reasoning runs thus: for injectites to work the sediment being injected and the host sediment must both be unlithified, sediments can not possibly remain unlithified for the huge periods of time (up to 100's Ma) usually attributed to them by conventional science, therefore the layers must have been laid down much quicker (Flood, Flood, FLOOD!). The reasoning that sediments can not remain unlithified for long time periods immediately falls flat on its posterior when you know that there are unconsolidated and poorly consolidated sandstones out there buried at depth - I know I've seen them and analysed them (though I will admit they are reservoir sands and oil can inhibit diagenesis, though you are still left with the time between deposition, burial and the inward migration of the crude).
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby Michael » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:14 pm

Your buddy Garner is following this thread.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Revisionist Geology of the Grand Canyon

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:50 pm

Michael wrote:Your buddy Garner is following this thread.


Lets hope they never find out about ... Deep Time (well it was worth a try!)

We're probably being labelled "suppressive persons" as I type...

As a slight variation on the topic I'm also seeing a lot of insistence that any rock that has been uplifted, folded etc must exhibit features like stretched and fractured constituent grains i.e. it must show evidence of being 'metamorphic'. If it dosen't show that then it must have been uplifted/folded while still unlithified. Total bollocks, but I'm having trouble stretching my head around diagenetic timing etc to actually disprove it... Easy practically, but theoretically, gah, I'm getting out of practice!

After my previous comments about the Coconino Sandstone there also appears to be a serious push to get it "fluvial" rather than aeolian - apparently someone has found dolomite ooids in it and they are reinterpreting the sedimentary structures (TalkOrigins archive is beginning to show its age in places). Having said that the geographical area that the Coconino seems to cover is very large and so lateral environmental change isn't out of the question nor is variation from the type locality.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron