From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 16:29:32 EDT
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 04:27:33 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
Others have pointed out that YEC protagonists are often very slick and
polished, with ready answers to lots of questions, and you confront them
publicly before a general audience at your peril.
Given that, I'd nevertheless be tempted to pose a question--along the
lines of Dick Fischer's (below)--that I think would stump any YECer and
at the same time would be simple enough to be comprehended by most
attentive nonscientists. The question is: Where did the observed huge
volumes of sedimentary rock come from? We know from oil wells and
seismic reflection data worldwide that large geologic basins such as
those covering most of Texas, much of Alberta and Saskatchewan and much
of Colorado, Wyoming and California--among many other states--often have
sedimentary rock down to two miles or more below the surface. Add it all
up and it easily comes to millions of cubic miles of sedimentary rock
worldwide. (One could do a quick and dirty calculation for North America
from published geologic sections.) Almost all of this rock is
fine-grained--shales, carbonates, sandstones and evaporites (salt &
anhydrite), and much of it is fossiliferous.
I've read a fair amount of YEC literature, and the only point that would
give them pause is the halite and anhydrite. They cannot be deposited
from flowing water, but require evaporation. As to sedimentary rocks,
most are persuaded that the flood tore up everything so thoroughly that
nothing remains of the antediluvian world which, by the way, consisted of
low highlands with gentle slopes. Even where finer materials precipitated
on coarser, they will hold that there was a temporary eddy that allowed
fine stuff to settle for a brief period before a stronger current brought
in coarser material. The rebuttal based on the time required for very
fine material to settle is probably too technical for them to grasp in a
quick presentation.
There are some YEC who realize that the "standard" explanation has
problems. One claimed that the "waters under the earth" broke through the
mid-ocean ridges, collapsing the ancient continents into the hole left.
Another claimed that asteroid impacts threw the material onto the dry
land. But the expectation is that the answers given will depend on what
kind of challenge is offered. There is no requirement for consistency, so
mutually exclusive "answers" will be presented.
The only explanation I've heard from YEC people is that it was deposited
very rapidly in Noah's flood. But how could a single flood possibly
deposit this much fine-grained material? Where would the flood waters
have obtained it? If Noah's flood had been truly catastrophic so that it
rapidly wore down what would have had to have been phenomenally high and
extensive mountain ranges, it would have left large, rough chunks of more
than likely crystalline rock, not the thick, smooth layers of
fine-grained carbonates and shales that we actually see; and the
sediments would have had very few embedded fossils. To get fine-grained
sedimentary rocks from pre-flood mountains would require some kind of
gigantic pulverizer in addition to lots of moving water. And then you'd
need a fossil generator.
A related problem would be to explain how so much of this rock wound up
below sea level. Presumably the pre-flood world topographically speaking
would have had to have had almost nothing but deep oceans and very
extensive and high mountain ranges. A further question then surfaces:
why did almost all the sedimentary rock go to what are now continental
land masses and not to what are now oceans? What kind of flood could
have distributed deposition in such fashion?
Asteroid impacts? But the YEC position often claims that there was
extreme orogeny in the time immediately following the flood. That this
would have produced such extreme earthquakes that everything would have
been knocked to pieces doesn't matter. You've got the preflood topography
wrong, according to their claims.
An additional related problem would be to explain how the sedimentary
material in such a violent system got segregated the way it did, so that
first you have a thick layer of limestone, for example, and then a thick
layer of shale. An even bigger challenge would be to explain how you
could get a thick layer of salt or anhydrite or coal between, say, two
shale layers in a presumably very turbulent and watery environment.
Someone on this list several months ago was saying that only rocks below
the Devonian were laid by Noah's flood. This would not solve the
problem, because in many areas you'd still have to deposit sedimentary
rock several miles thick in just a few thousand years. Where does the
Bible say these further catastrophes occurred? Were there lots of later
catastrophic floods in historic times, and if so, where did they get
their sediments?
The YECer thus seems to need lots of totally implausible ad hoc
mechanisms. The accepted geologic explanations, on the other hand, while
not without their difficulties, are generally rational and believable to
people with moderately open minds.
Don
If I have an audience on my side ready to believe anything I say in
defense of what they believe anyway, and I provide answers that sound
plausible until analyzed, how can you best me? I was in the audience when
Dr. Gish was asked, "What evidence could convince you that you were
wrong?" His answer: "There is none." I have heard from others that this
answer has been given repeatedly. When God finally tells him, "I took a
lot more time to produce the universe that you allowed," he'll probably
say, "You're lying." In the fact of invincible ignorance, how far can you
get?
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 16:36:39 EDT