Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bent strata
cloud_strife
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (96713)
04-01-2004 6:29 PM


I was just informed the other day that and I quote:
"There is also evidence for bent strata of rock, which if there was some warping in the strata that had been there for lots of years, there would be cracked, not bent strata. This itself is evidence that the warping took place very quickly before the rocks would have had the chance to solidify. This evidence is in complete agreement with the idea of a global flood. "
Does anyone have anything to say against this?? I'm not too informed on strata...

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 04-01-2004 9:59 PM cloud_strife has not replied
 Message 4 by Gary, posted 04-02-2004 2:07 AM cloud_strife has not replied
 Message 5 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-02-2004 10:28 AM cloud_strife has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 20 (96790)
04-01-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cloud_strife
04-01-2004 6:29 PM


quote:
I was just informed the other day that and I quote:
"There is also evidence for bent strata of rock, which if there was some warping in the strata that had been there for lots of years, there would be cracked, not bent strata. This itself is evidence that the warping took place very quickly before the rocks would have had the chance to solidify. This evidence is in complete agreement with the idea of a global flood. "
Does anyone have anything to say against this?? I'm not too informed on strata...
Actually, this is exactly wrong. The faster the deformation (strain rate) the more likely that brittle failure and fractures will occur. There are thousands of tests to this effect, including the old silly putty experiment.
I hope you put no credence in your source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cloud_strife, posted 04-01-2004 6:29 PM cloud_strife has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-02-2004 1:49 AM edge has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 20 (96944)
04-02-2004 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
04-01-2004 9:59 PM


The source is trying to atribute all geological folding to being soft sediment deformation.
The short answer, is that in the lab, solid rock has been shown to be foldable.
(As Edge very much knows) The subject of geologic deformation is vast. Much detailed study has been done, to understand the processes. Under force, rock will deform, either ductiley (fold or flow) or brittlely (fracture) depending on the conditions.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 04-01-2004 9:59 PM edge has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 20 (96965)
04-02-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cloud_strife
04-01-2004 6:29 PM


Most rocks with bent patterns on them are metamorphic, meaning they transformed into their present state under high heat and pressure. Under those conditions, I don't see why rocks couldn't bend.
If there had been a Great Flood which warped the rocks somehow, they would be sedimentary rocks, the type in which fossils can be found. These can also have layers and stripes, but they are generally flat and not bent.
Also, if the rocks solidified just after the Flood, and bent as they were hardening, similar processes would form rocks today. We still have floods from time to time nowadays, they just aren't as big as the Biblical one, and they don't form rocks like whoever you talked to described.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cloud_strife, posted 04-01-2004 6:29 PM cloud_strife has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 5 of 20 (97020)
04-02-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cloud_strife
04-01-2004 6:29 PM


cloud_strife wrote:
"I was just informed the other day that and I quote:
"There is also evidence for bent strata of rock, which if there was
some warping in the strata that had been there for lots of years,
there would be cracked, not bent strata. This itself is evidence
that the warping took place very quickly before the rocks would have
had the chance to solidify. This evidence is in complete agreement
with the idea of a global flood."
Does anyone have anything to say against this?? I'm not too informed
on strata."
This sounds like the "Many strata are too tightly bent" textbite that various Young earth creationists repeatedly claim as an indication (evidence) of an Young Earth. In this claim, there are two types of folding being confused and conflated by Young Earth creationists. The first is soft sediment deformation, which did occur by the deformation of sediment while it was still soft. However, this type of deformation is typically limited to either within individual beds or sets of beds. The other type is the folding (bending) of sedimentary and other rocks that occurrs by deformation of solid rock. Young Earth creationists, either mindlessly confuse soft sediment deformation with or deliberately misrepresent it as being the same as the folding and deformation of larger thicknesses of folded strata, hundreds to thousands of feet, that occurs long after sedimentary strata has been lithified into solid rock. There are a variety of processes that bend (deform) solid sedimentary and other rock into folds. This is discussed in:
1. "Lecture 8 Strain", PDF File.
2. "Geol 456/656 Lithospheric Deformation" at:
Nevada Seismological Lab
3. "Structural Geology Lectures 35-36 Models for Ductile Failure" at:
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc465/lect35.rtf
4. "UNB GEOLOGY 1001 Lecture 12 - Deformation and Structures" at:
http://www.unb.ca/courses/geol1001a/lec-12.htm
5."BRITTLE VS. DUCTILE ROCK DEFORMATION"
Geology • Beloit College
For a detailed discussion, a person can look at:
Davis, G. H. (1984) Structural Geology. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 491 pp.
or
Currie, J. B., H. W. Patnode, and R. P. Trump (1962) Development of
folds in sedimentary strata. Geological Society of America Bulletin.
vol. 73, pp. 655-674.
(or any other textbook on structural geology.)
Finally, a person can read "Claim CD510" (Rocks do not fold without breaking) at: CD510: Folded rocks
If a person closely enough at folded sedimentary rocks, which Young Earth don't bothered to do too often, he or she will find an abundance of evidence that the rocks were folded while lithified. The large-scale folds that a person finds within the Appalachian Moutains, Rocky Mountains, Alps, Himalayan, and other mountain ranges, all show features in outcrops that they were deformed while solid. These features included cleavage, jointing, rag folds, keystone grabens, kink banding, foliation, and so forth.
Some examples are:
1. "A slate quarry in Pennsylvania. Note the person in the
red jacket at the bottom of the image for scale. Photo is
courtesy of Dr. Stanley Finney, CSU Long Beach."
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/bperry/slatequarryStan1.jpg
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/bperry/ROCKS.htm
2. Selected Natural Fracture Features
http://www.pe.utexas.edu/~jolson/nat.frac.html
It would have been impossible for the cleavage and fractures, illustrated above, to have developed had the rocks been unlithified when folded.
Definite evidence that folded sedimentary rock was bent (deformed), while they were solid, can be seen in the deformation of pebbles, oolites, and fossils contained within them. If the sediments were folded while they were still soft the pebbles, the process of folding could not have deformed the oolites, pebbles, fossils, or other particles. The types of fossils deformed include the hard shells of invertebrates, i.e. clams, gastropods, corals, and so forth, and the bones of vertebrates along with other fossils. Soft sediment deformation instead of stretching these fossils, would have either not effected them or simply broken them up into numerous pieces. Particles such as pebbles and oolites would not have been affected by folding caused by soft sediment deformation. If a person finds deformed fossils, oolites, and pebbles in folded sedimentary rocks that have been stretched by the deformation, it is clear evidence that the sedimentary rocks were deformed while solid.
This discussed in "Structural Geology Lecture 8 Strain Markers (Strain Analysis)" at http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc465/lect08.rtf .
Some documented examples of fossils deformed by stretching are:
Beach, A. (1979) The analysis of deformed belemnites. Journal of
Structural Geology. vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 127-135.
Bruton, D. L., and D. A. T. Harper (1992) Fossils in fold belts. Terra
Nova. vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 179-183.
Cooper, R. A. (1990) Interpretation of tectonically deformed fossils.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics. vol. 33, no. 2,
pp. 321-332.
Diestler, K. A. (1997) Deformed trilobites and strain features from
the Metaline Formation, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Washington State University. Pullman, WA.
Engelder, T., and R. Engelder (1977) Fossil distortion and decollement
tectonics of the Appalachian Plateau. Geology. vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 457-460
Engelder, T. and P. Geiser (1979) The relationship between pencil
cleavage and lateral shortening within the Devonian section of the
Appalachian Plateau, New York. Geology. vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 460-464.
Hobbs, B. H. and J. L. Talbot (1968) The analysis of strain in
deformed rocks; a reply. Journal of Geology. vol. 76, no. 4, p. 494.
Motani, R. W. (1997) New technique for retrodeforming tectonically
deformed fossils, with an example for ichthyosaurian specimens.
Lethaia. vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 221-228.
Sdzuy, K. (1966) An improved method of analysing distortion in fossils.
Palaeontology. vol. 9, Part 1, pp. 125-134.
Wellman, H. W. (1962) A graphical method for analyzing fossil
distortion caused by tectonic deformation. Geological Magazine.
vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 348-352.
Some examples of stretched pebbles, which soft-sediment deformation cannot create, found in sedimentary strata deformed while solid rock are:
1. metaconglomerates
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/...etarock/METACONGLOMERATE.htm
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/bperry/metaconglhandsample2.JPG
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/.../metarock/metaconglStan1.jpg
2. "Stretched pebbles in the Raft River metamorphic core
complex, Idaho." at:
Page Not Found | Structural Geology and Tectonics
Page Not Found | Structural Geology and Tectonics
3. stretched pebbles
From "Field_Camp_picts/"
4. "GEO3Z03 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY" This PDF
file has pictures of stretched pebbles at:
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/...y/boyce/3z03/3z03_lec8.pdf
and
5. "Stretched pebble Conglomerate in the South Park
Member of the Kingston Peak Formation, Precambrian in
age." at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhaughy/FPGDV.JPG
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhaughy/ROCKS.HTM
Documented examples of stretched pebbles associated with folded strata are described and discussed in:
Borradaile, G. J., and D. Tarling (1984) Strain partitioning and
magnetic fabrics in particulate flow. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences. vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 694-697.
Burns, K. L., and A. H. Spry (1969) Analysis of the shape of deformed
pebbles. Tectonophysics. vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 177-196
Chatterjee, S. R., and D. K. Sen Gupta (1984) Deformed pebbles from
Jamua and Kariapathar, Bhagalpur District, Bihar, India. Modern
Geology. vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 227-234.
Gay, N. C. (1968) Pure shear and simple shear deformation of
inhomogeneous viscous fluids; 2, The determination of the total finite
strain in a rock from objects such as deformed pebbles. Tectonophysics.
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 295-302.
Gay, N. C. (1970) The analysis of strain in the Barberton mountain
land, eastern Transvaal, using deformed pebbles. Journal of Geology.
vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 377-396.
Jerzykiewicz, T. (1985) Tectonically deformed pebbles in the Brazeau
and Paskapoo formations, central Alberta Foothills, Canada.
Sedimentary Geology. vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp. 159-180.
Kumar, R., T. Okudaira, and M. Yoshida (2000) Neoproterozoic
deformation at a boundary zone between the Nellore-Khammam schist belt
and Pakhal Basin, SE India; strain analysis of deformed pebbles.
Gondwana Research. vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 349-359.
Lin, C. W., and M. L. Huang (1997) The fractures and paleostress of
deformed pebbles in the conglomerates of the Toukoshan Formation,
Chiayi-Yunlin area. Journal of the Geological Society of China.
vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 281-297.
Srivastava, H. B., and V. K. Gairola (1986) Strain analysis in the
basal unit of Delhi Supergroup in Kishangarh area (Rajasthan) as
deduced from deformed pebbles. Journal of the Geological Society of
India. vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 440-449.
Xu, X., T. Ma, L. Sun, and G. Li (1996) Characteristics and formation
mechanism of superplastic stretched pebbles in the Huangshan ductile
compression zone in the Hami area, Xingjiang. Diqiu Xuebao [Acta
Geoscientia Sinica] vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 276-281.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland.
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cloud_strife, posted 04-01-2004 6:29 PM cloud_strife has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2004 10:39 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 20 (97021)
04-02-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bill Birkeland
04-02-2004 10:28 AM


Bill, thank you for your posting - as informative as usual.
Do you have anything specifically on the deformation of the Tapeats Sandstone caused by the Kaibab Upwarp ? This is a specific example used by John Morris of the ICR and while I am aware that some of Morris' other assertions are untrue I have not found anything specifically on this instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-02-2004 10:28 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-03-2004 3:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
cloud_strife
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (97175)
04-02-2004 4:20 PM


Thanks guys for those very informative posts!!
And no, I didn't take any credence to his post. He claims he's a "scientist", yet he believes in creation, and accepts the flood as an actual occurance...hmmm

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 10:07 PM cloud_strife has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 20 (97366)
04-02-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cloud_strife
04-02-2004 4:20 PM


quote:
And no, I didn't take any credence to his post. He claims he's a "scientist", yet he believes in creation, and accepts the flood as an actual occurance...hmmm
The difference between a real scientist and one of those creationist "scientists" is that real scientist experiment and experiment until they have sufficient data to come up with a theory while a creationist try to make everything fit with his faith. This includes using a hammer and pound the heck out of scientific laws until they comply with his faith.
Speaking from experience, I advice you to not take credence in any of these creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cloud_strife, posted 04-02-2004 4:20 PM cloud_strife has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 04-03-2004 11:28 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 20 (97474)
04-03-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 10:07 PM


quote:
The difference between a real scientist and one of those creationist "scientists" is that real scientist experiment and experiment until they have sufficient data to come up with a theory while a creationist try to make everything fit with his faith. This includes using a hammer and pound the heck out of scientific laws until they comply with his faith.
Speaking from experience, I advice you to not take credence in any of these creationists.
--Speaking from experience, while the majority of YEC's are uneducated and incredible, I know that there are at least a handful who are very much deserving to be called scientists without the quotations.
--Furtheremore, I strongly suggest to cloud_strife that he not prejudicially conclude unwarranted credence to someone because of their YECism. Instead, I suggest that he look into the issues himself and make his conclusions subsequent to rigorous study.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 10:07 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 04-03-2004 2:01 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 20 (97512)
04-03-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
04-03-2004 11:28 AM


quote:
Speaking from experience, while the majority of YEC's are uneducated and incredible, I know that there are at least a handful who are very much deserving to be called scientists without the quotations.
Creation "scientists" aren't really scientists at all, period. In order for someone to be a scientist, he has to be willing to conclude that his beliefs may be false if enough data go against them. However, his faith prevents him from doing this. THAT is the difference between real science and creation science. Real science come up with conclusions AFTER having done experiments and extrapolations, while creation science come up with conclusions first THEN beat the hell out of the data to conform with the conclusions.
I remember one of my old philosophy professor snapped at a girl who wrote a paper trying to validate creation science even after he spent an entire lecture hour talking about how creation science isn't real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 04-03-2004 11:28 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 04-03-2004 3:23 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 04-03-2004 5:10 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 11 of 20 (97527)
04-03-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
04-02-2004 10:39 AM


In message 7, PaulK asked:
"Do you have anything specifically on the deformation
of the Tapeats Sandstone caused by the Kaibab
Upwarp ? This is a specific example used by John
Morris of the ICR and while I am aware that some
of Morris' other assertions are untrue I have not
found anything specifically on this instance."
Given that John Morris is actually an engineer, and not trained as a geologist, it is not surprising that he has significant problems in getting geologic facts and arguments correct. Unlike Austin and Snelling, Morris wasn't originally trained as a geologist and obviously has done an extremely poor job of teaching himself anything about geology. Some interesting comments along this line:
"John Morris claims to be a geologist again."
1. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0134.html
2. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0137.html
3. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0143.html
In URL no. 3 listed within the "John Morris claims to be a geologist again." thread, well-known evangelical Christian and geologist Glen Morton stated about John Morris:
"John's Masters was concerned with building a tidal Dam
across the Bay of Fundy and referenced exactly 1 geological
book. His PhD dissertation concerned compressing coal dust
into pellets so it could be burned. It also references
exactly 1 geological reference. The degree was granted by
the engineering department, not the geological department."
In the "Young Earth", John Morris's primary argument for the "Kaibab Upwarp", which technically speaking is properly called the "Kaibab Monocline", having been created by soft sediment deformation is based upon the lack of evidence of "great stress, e.g. elongated sand grains or broken crystals of cementing minerals", having been found within its folded strata. Morris argued that the lack of such "indicators of great stress" as Safari would call them, indicates that the strata deformed by the Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp) were folded while soft and soon after deformation. In addition, he concluded from the latter interpretation, that about a half million years didn't occur between the deposition of the Kaibab Monocline and the formation of the Tapeats Sandstone.
Contrary to Morris's claims about the Tapeats Sandstone, it and the other strata involved in the Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp) all exhibit an abundance of prominent and well-defined internal deformation, faulting, and fracturing characteristic of the brittle deformation of lithified sedimentary strata. Only well-lithified, solid strata would have produced such features when folded. It is impossible for the Kaibab Monocline to have been created by soft sediment deformation. It is quite clear, that these sedimentary strata were well-lithified when the Kaibab Monocline was created. It also quite clear that for someone who claims to be a geologist, John Morris is remarkably deaf, dumb, and blind to what has been written about the Kaibab Monocline and to the physical evidence a person can find in field in making his conclusions.
For example Mollema (1994), listed below, noted:
"Four structural domains are defined from west to east across
the monocline on the basis of recurrent fracture assemblages:
(1) systematic joints at high angle to the monocline trend
and discontinuous joints at high angle to the systematic set;
(2) bedding plane faults and associated taft cracks;
(3) major faults striking parallel to the fold axis and
deformation bands; (4) a systematic joint set parallel to
the monocline and joints at high angle to the systematic set."
Had the sediments been soft (unlithified) when folded, it would have been impossible for the systematic joints, deformation band shear zones, the discontinuous joints, synthetic and antithetic fractures, bedding plane faults, taft cracks, major faults, and deformation bands described above to have formed. Various studies, i.e. Cooke (1997), Cook et al. (2000), and Tindall (1999, 2000), listed below, clearly demonstrated that the strata comprising the Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp), at the time of their folding, consisted of solid rock, not soft sediment, by the ways in which they deformed.
In fact, John Morris is completely unaware of the fact that the Kaibab Monocline is cored a depth by a well-developed fault system. As a result, the Tapeats Sandstone, which lies directly on Precambrain basement, typically has been completely cut and displaced by the fault underlying the Kaibab Monocline and itself not monoclinally folded as are the overlying strata. The folding associated with the Tapeats Sandstone is no longer an unfaulted monocline, but now represents either drag deformation along the foot and hanging walls of the fault or the final stage of it being completely sheared by fautling. The folded strata directly overlying the fault are intensively deformed by fractures and minors faulting characteristic of the brittle deformation of solid strata.
The typically faulted nature of the basal strata within the Kaibab Monocline, specifically the Tapeats Sandstone (typically the lowermost of the folded sedimentary layer), contradicts an observation made by John Morris in Back to Genesis (BTG) no. 35b of the ICR, which is titled "Is There Geological Evidence for the Young Earth?". This issue of BTG briefly mentioned an outcrop of Tapeats Sandstone that was "bent from horizontal to vertical in a space of 100 feet or so", which offered as proof that the Tapeats Sandstone was almost certainly still soft when bent" by soft sediment deformation. That other geologists have neither found folding undisturbed by faulting nor evidence of soft sediment deformation anywhere within the Tapeats Sandstone where deformed by the Kaibab Monocline, even within the Grand Canyon, suggests that Morris has grossly misinterpreted or greatly imagine what he saw.
Unfortunately, despite the importance of this outcrop to his arguments, John Morris completely neglected to provide any specific documentation, not even an illustration, of this allegedly bent layer of Tapeats Sandstone in BTG no 35B. In this article, the location of this outcrop is given simply as "my favorite spot' and otherwise left as an undisclosed location somewhere in Grand Canyon National Park. However, being vague about the location of this outcrop benefits Morris' arguments greatly because, if other people can't find and visit this outcrop, they can neither dispute nor disagree with how he either describe or interpreted it. Thus, John Morris was free to describe and interpret it in any way that his imagination desires or thesis requires without any fear of being proved wrong by later study of this outcrop.
Some references, including Mollema (1994), which document and describe deformation features and styles within the Kaibab Monocline that could only have been form by the folding of solid rock are:
Babenroth, D. L., and Strahler, A. N., 1945, Geomorphology and
structure of the East Kaibab monocline, Arizona and Utah.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 56, pp. 107-150.
Cooke, M. L., 1997, Predicting fracture localization in folded
strata from mechanical stratigraphy and fold shape: case study
of East Kaibab Monocline, Utah. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences. vol. 34, No.3-4, p.351.
Cooke, M. L., Mollema, P. N., Pollard, D. D., and Aydin, A.
2000, Interlayer slip and joint localization in the East Kaibab
Monocline, Utah; field evidence and results from numerical
modelling. In Forced folds and fractures, John W. Cosgrove and
Mohammed S. Ameen, eds., pp. 23-49. Special Publication no. 169.
Geological Society, London.
Cristallini, Ernesto O., and Allmendinger, Richard W., 2001,
Pseudo 3-D modeling of trishear fault-propagation folding
Journal of Structural Geology. vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1883-1899.
Mollema, Pauline N., 1994, The influence of structural position
and lithology on the fracture distribution in the East Kaibab
Monocline, SE Utah; implications for fluid flow properties.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Reches, Z., 1978, Development of monoclines; Part I, Structure
of the Palisades Creek branch of the East Kaibab Monocline,
Grand Canyon, Arizona. In Laramide folding associated with
basement block faulting in the western United States, V.
Matthews, III, ed., pp. 235-271. Memoir no. 151. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Tindall, Sarah E., 1999, Monocline development by oblique-slip
fault-propagation folding; the East Kaibab Monocline,Colorado
Plateau, Utah. Journal of Structural Geology. vol. 21, no. 10,
pp. 1303-1320
Tindall, Sarah E., 2000, The Cockscomb segment of the East
Kaibab Monocline: taking the structural plunge. In Geology of
Utah's Parks and Monuments, D. A. Sprinkel, T. C. Chidsey Jr.,
and P. B. Anderson, ed., pp. 1 -14. Publication no. 28. Utah
Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah
Quillin, Michael Edward, 1983, A statistical study of fracture
orientation and spacing on the East Kaibab Monocline, Arizona.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK
An ironic aspect of the claims by John Morris about the Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp), is that 3 years after he got his Ph.D. at University of Oklahoma, another graduate student received an M.S. degree in Geology for research. His thesis, Quillin (1983), documented geological structures within the Kaibab Monocline that by themselves completely refuted Morris' claim about it formation by the deformation of soft, unlithified sediments. As listed in the above publications, the fact of the matter is that published research, i.e. Quillin (1983) and Reches (1978) had refuted John Morris' ideas about the formation of the Kaibab Monocline by soft sediment deformation before he proposed it in "Young Earth" and even before John Morris got his Ph.D.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2004 10:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2004 12:03 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 12 of 20 (97534)
04-03-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
04-03-2004 2:01 PM


Creation "scientists" aren't really scientists at all, period.
TC comes pretty close; he's at least trying.. He's changed his beliefs significantly over the past few years and acknowledges the problems far more than most do. See, e.g., this message.
Your claim is true about 99.99% of "creations scientists", but blanket generalizations are always dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 04-03-2004 2:01 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 04-03-2004 5:48 PM JonF has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 20 (97549)
04-03-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
04-03-2004 2:01 PM


quote:
Creation "scientists" aren't really scientists at all, period. In order for someone to be a scientist, he has to be willing to conclude that his beliefs may be false if enough data go against them. However, his faith prevents him from doing this. THAT is the difference between real science and creation science. Real science come up with conclusions AFTER having done experiments and extrapolations, while creation science come up with conclusions first THEN beat the hell out of the data to conform with the conclusions.
--As I see it, there is no such thing as a 'creation scientist', as your either a scientist or your not. Likewise I don't believe 'creation science' exists, as you either have science, or you don't. The methodology you just spoke of is applied by many YEC's, however I still maintain that there are some who are scientifically sound in their methodology of inquiry.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 04-03-2004 2:01 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 20 (97562)
04-03-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by JonF
04-03-2004 3:23 PM


quote:
Your claim is true about 99.99% of "creations scientists", but blanket generalizations are always dangerous.
I agree that every once in a while, you get an exception, just like everything. But it isn't my job, your job, or anyone's job to convince these people to be more objective at science than make everything fit into their faith. Perhaps TC came a long way from where he started, but it wasn't anyone's job to make him realize that he can't shape science anyway he wanted to make it fit his faith. He was supposed to approach everything objectively if he wanted to claim he was a *scientist*.
But yes, I do agree that blanket generalization is always dangerous. But then again, danger is my middle name
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 04-03-2004 3:23 PM JonF has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 20 (97670)
04-04-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bill Birkeland
04-03-2004 3:04 PM


Thanks, Bill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-03-2004 3:04 PM Bill Birkeland 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