Re: [asa] ICR for August

In his summary of ICR Act & Facts for August, Burgy wrote:

< ICR "Acts & Facts" - August 2006
<
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
< IMPACT No. 398 - Do Volcanoes Come in Super-Size?
<
< Austin and Hoesch write: "Geologists have long known that explosive
< volcanoes of the past were far bigger than the relatively tepid
eruptions
< known from human recorded experience. As a new generation of geologists
< wonder about the mechanics of supervolcanoes some ICR geologists are
also
< wondering about a gigantic volcanic ash pile -- the Brushy Basin Member
< of the Morrison Formation." They posit that supervocanos erupted during
< the Flood. "The record is best interpreted in durations of days or
weeks,
< not millions of years. The Genesis Flood provides the historical
< framework ... ."
<
< The entire article is at www.icr.org/article/2830/

When I first read this IMPACT article, my initial reaction was ... Yo hum.
Austin & Hoesch have identified another small catastrophic episode buried
in the sedimentary record and, by ignoring all the evidence for
non-catastrophic deposition above and below the Brushy Basin Member of the
Morrison Formation, are promoting their recurrent theme of 'any
catastrophe = evidence for the Genesis Flood.' However, as I reflected on
the article I realized that despite my initial assessment (which I still
hold) Austin & Hoesch are giving away the store! A few more articles like
this one and they will have eroded almost all of the basic assumptions
behind young-earth creationism (YEC) flood geology as promoted by Whitcomb
& Morris in "The Genesis Flood". Flood Geology is built on shifting sand.

In case you missed these nuances in the article, let me point out a few.

1. "Uniformitarian geology [is] contrary to both the Bible and to
observable science." Henry Morris, Geology and the Flood (IMPACT#6)

In this current IMPACT article, Austin & Hoesch consistently use
Uniformitarian geology ("the present is the key to the past") to explain
the features seen in the geologic record. An excellent example is their
discussion of explosive volcanic styles. Using evidence from Mt. St.
Helens, which was observed in the present, they explain past volcanic
features on a scale never witnessed by man ... such as the eruption of
Bishop Tuff from the Long Valley Caldera in California (the estimated age
of 700,000 years ago was not mentioned). In fact, I don't recall a single
observation in the entire article that was not based on Uniformitarian
geology principles!

2. The geological column is a fiction ... Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse
of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House

YEC claims on the geologic column are varied and at times conflicting.
Although I not sure that ICR statements ever went as far as that promoted
by Huse, ICR publications have repeatedly impugned the validity of the
geologic column by stressing that strata in the geologic column are
sometimes out of order. To be fair, Austin has previously refuted some of
the YEC geologic column arguments (while promoting other arguments that I
would question) in "Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column"
(IMPACT#137). In the current article, Austin & Hoesch accept and describe
the mappable Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation as a valid part
of the geologic column and go so far as to identify it as Late Jurassic
(although I am sure they would deny the accepted age of ~150 MY old).

3. Fossils are used to determine the order and dates of the strata in
which they are found. But the fossil order itself is based on the order of
strata and the assumption of evolution. Therefore, using fossil
progression as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. Morris,
Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism. Master Books.

The order of fossils in the sedimentary record and correlation of rock
units based on contained fossils are issues from the geologic record that
are continually being contested in YEC publications. Henry Morris has
variously tried to deny fossil order (or faunal succession); or try to
explain it away as a function of ecological zones and ability to flee
rising flood waters (dinosaur fossils are found below large mammal fossils
because dinosaurs either lived at lower elevations or mammals were smarter
about fleeing the flood); or try to explain it as a function of hydrologic
sorting (dinosaur bones sink faster than mammal bones). Note that all
three of Morris' explanations are mutually exclusive - each one
contradicts the others. However, Austin & Hoesch use fossils to correlate
volcanic mudflows in California with the Morrison Formation to the east!
"Fossils found in the [Inyo Mountains Volcanic Complex] deposit include
bivalves ..., which remarkably are found also in the Brushy Basin Member
of the Morrison Formation far to the east. It is easy to envision the
Inyo Mountain mudflows and pyroclastic flows grading eastward into the ...
Morrison Formation in a vast, once-continuous sheet that has been
dissected by erosion." Was that H. Morris turning over in his grave that
I just heard?

4. Radiometric dating is an invalid way of determining ages (numerous YEC
sources including Morris and Austin.)

Austin & Hoesch don't claim to accept the validity of radiometric dating.
In fact, Austin has done several studies attempting to discredit
radiometric dating assumptions, techniques, or results. Thus my amazement
when I read the part in this IMPACT article where Austin & Hoesch suggest
that the source of the volcanic ash in the Late Jurassic Brushy Basin
Member of the Morrison Formation could be the Independence dike swarm in
the central Sierra Nevada Range with the statement: "The swarm of dikes
has long been interpreted as having opened as an event with an interpreted
age of ~150 Ma (Late Jurassic). Now I didn't take the time to check out
their reference for this age for the dike swarm but I would be willing to
bet that it is based on radiometric dating. (I'll check it out from the
library when I return in a few days and will issue a retraction if I am
proved wrong.) If my assumption is correct, then Austin & Hoesch are
accepting radiometric ages when they are convenient but then turning
around and denying the validity of the technique and resulting numbers.

Thanks Burgy! After reading this IMPACT article, I can't wait for the
next one that interprets geology for the YEC faithful. It will be
interesting to see which way the flood geology shifts again.

Steve
[Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed herein are my own and
are not to be attributed to my employer.]
_____________
 Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
 Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
 Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
 Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
 -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 9 16:28:04 2006