Re: [asa] Creation Science Fiction

Jon,
 
I looked over the MO CSA website briefly. Their arguments for a young earth are pretty much classic misconceptions as far as I can tell from the short look I took. I did look more closely at the arguments for the granites in SE MO, since I've taken students there on field trips and have started a research project in one of the plutons. I've seen many of the field relationships in these rocks.
 
They claim that "the granites are touted as 'proof' of millions of years of cooling by thermal conduction."
FALSE - the claim that the granites are 1.4-1.5 billion years old is based on U-Pb isotopic data from zircons within these rocks. Thermal conduction has nothing to do with their age determination, but yes the granites did cool by thermal conduction.
 
Once this falsehood is established, they further state "it has recently been shown that the granites are laced with cracks that show evidence of water passage. Thus, convection, not conduction, was the primary cooling method, dropping the cooling time to a few hundred years."
FALSE - For this to be true, they would have to show that the water was flowing through the "cracks" in the magma while it was still cooling, not after the magma had already turned to solid rock. But of course if it was still cooling, it couldn't crack!! Only solid materials can crack! The cracks in fact show that the water was flowing through after the rocks were already solidified, so the flow of water here has nothing to do with the cooling rate of these rocks.
 
But still more "Since these granites intrude into Flood strata, it is obvious that, at least many of them, formed during the Genesis Flood which produced enough geologic violence to release great quantities of magma".
FALSE but wow... so many absurdities in one statement!!! First falsehood to point out is that the granites, rhyolites, and basalts of this area do not intrude the overlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. The Paleozoic sedimentary strata are probably what they are referring to as "Flood strata", but these are deposited on top of the granites - they are NOT intruded by them. This is clearly seen in the field relationships. There is one famous site where there is a fairly thick soil/regolith layer developed on top of the granite underneath the basal Cambrian Lamotte sandstone, indicating that the granite was exposed to the surface and was being weathered before the Cambrian sand was deposited on top of it. In another outcrop nearby, the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are deposited on top of one of the large rhyolite deposits which is cut by a large basalt dike (a planar feature that's nearly vertical in this case). The basalt is more clearly weathered than the rhyolite, and the overlying sed rocks are deposited into this "hole" in the underlying igneous rocks - again indicating that these igneous rocks were exposed to the surface and being weathered BEFORE the sediments were deposited on them. I could give GPS coordinates, road numbers, and mileage information so that anyone could find and observe these facts for themselves if they wanted to.
 
Fiction indeed!!
 
Best,
Charles
 
 
_______________________________
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geology
Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
ccarriga@olivet.edu
http://geology.olivet.edu/
 
"To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns the valley or the mountain:
but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a former world,
the mossy covering which obstructs his view,
and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,
is no less than a serious subject of regret."
          - James Hutton
_______________________________

>>> "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net> 4/16/2007 11:00 AM >>>
My new phrase is "Creation Science Fiction", after reading some things over
the weekend on creation science of the Grand Canyon and some information
from our local Missouri creation science organization
(http://www.csama.org/CSA-LOCL.HTM - I haven't had much time to investigate
the specific claims on this page, but would be interested if someone has
some specific responses to them, beyond general evidence for old earth and
lack of conclusive evidence for a global worldwide flood).

Science fiction makes its money by introducing just enough science into the
fiction to make it a believable, or at least a semi-plausible, tale.
Therefore, I think "science fiction" is a good characterization of much of
what passes for creation science. And just as serious scientists don't
bother spending time trying to chase around every science fiction novel to
correct their scientific errors, most serious scientists don't go chasing
after every creation science claim. Rather, they primarily spend their time
doing actual science. A novel concept.

So the word for the week is, "Creation Science Fiction". Someone ought to
write a book by that title. You have my permission, as long as you send
royalties for use of the name. :-)

Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 17 13:06:12 2007