> Good point Tony, it is my understanding that there is essentially a
> constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth's atmosphere
> from space and then gradually settling to the earth's surface.
>
> "Hans Pettersson obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year"
>
> Hans Pettersson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteritic Dust," Scientific
> American, Vol. 202 (February 1960),p.132
and, in another article,...
> There is some interesting facts about the Mt. St. Helens area and spirit
> lake that explains many of these layers which were not layed down in
> millions of years but rather hours. I believe that Steve Austin even has
> made a vidio about it. I have seen the vidio and it is very informative.
The first argument is totally bogus Randy, as we've discussed before
on the SCICHR-LIST. One of my main problems with YEC is that they insist
upon reusing the same old tired arguments that have been thoroughly
discredited years ago. If you don't agree with the refutations, at least
acknowledge their existence and provide a reason for not accepting them.
A couple of people have already replied to the dust issue but I can't
help adding a thought... Aren't you the least bit uncomfortable about
using a reference from a 1960 Scientific American article in your attempt
to disprove all of modern geology? About using a terrestrial-based
measurement of cosmic dust influx taken before much more accurate satellite
data was available? Even Peterson recognized that there were problems
with his data in that it was hard to say what percentage was due to
terrestrial contamination. Now that we've measured this rate in space,
where there is no terrestrial contamination, we know that it's actually
a couple of orders of magnitude less.
Bottom line, quoting an article about obsolete, out-of-date research
from a 1960 issue of Scientific American may convince people who know
nothing of science and how it works, and those who've already decided the
issue based upon their literal interpretation of Scripture, but it is
why many speak of "scientific" creationism as an oxymoron.
I also have to take exception with the Grand Canyon comments. I've read
some of Austin's material and I recently saw YEC Gary Parker here at the
U of I present this argument as well. In my opinion, it's totally ridiculous.
An impressive little canyon, with tributaries, formed around Mt. St. Helens
in a couple of days. Parker kept referring to it as a "1:40 scale model of
the Grand Canyon" implying, of course, that the Grand Canyon was formed by
the same type of process in a comparable amount of time. So what? When it
rains real hard, I can see miniature canyons in my driveway. What's not
mentioned, is that this little canyon was formed in unconsolidated volcanic
ash and muds. It wasn't formed in solid rock. Try digging a meter-deep
canyon in mud with a shovel and then try digging one into the Redwall
limestone. I won't wait up.
Ah, but you might say that the Grand Canyon was formed by soft-sediment
deformation since all the sediments were laid down during the flood. Take
a hike up the canyon somewhere and look at the fossils. Amphibian tracks
in the Coconino sandstone a couple of thousand feet up? Explain to me how
a turbulent flood deposits thousands of feet of sediment in less than a
year with little amphibians able to take strolls atop of it before thousands
of more feet are piled on? Caverns in the Redwall limestone? Explain how
caverns are formed in soft sediments. Alternatively, do some geochemistry
and explain how much water needs to flow through these rocks to dissolve
and carry away that much mass of calcite in only 4000 years. Explain the
erosional surfaces found between strata throughout the canyon. Explain
how catastrophic floods deposit alternating sequences of sandstones, shales,
limestones, etc. (no dinosaurs on bottom, no trilobites on top!) instead of
a graded sequence of conglomerates, sandstones, and shales as lighter and
lighter particles settle out of solution with time (and dinos and trilos
jumbled together).
Want to know what catastrophically-formed canyons look like? Visit the
Channeled Scablands in Washington State. Why don't YEC's compare the
Grand Canyon to the Channeled Scablands. Because geomorphologically they
look nothing at all alike. Maybe that should tell them something...
In my opinion, most of these YEC arguments are misleading at best and many
verge on being outright dishonesty. It grieves me to see them being presented
by well-meaning Christians. YEC Ken Ham, whom I also saw recently, spoke of
"creation evangelism" but I sincerely believe that those who convert because
of YEC arguments have built their faith on very shaky sand (if pressed, I'd
even say "lies") and I also believe that many, many more people are turned
away from Christianity by these types of claims and arguments. If the claims
about creation are so sloppy and indefensible then what about the claims
regarding Jesus Christ? Why should I believe Henry Morris' (to pick on one
of many) claims about God when he's dishonest (and I think I can document that
claim from his own books) about other things?
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium