A volcano slides into the sea causing an 800 foot wave to crash onto into an adjacent island. As that wave crashes onto land it picks up 700-ton boulders and throws them uphill leaving them stranded far above their source. It sounds like a plot from a Hollywood movie but this is real. It happened in the Cape Verde Islands off of the west coast of Africa long ago.
Yes, local geological catastrophes happen and those catastrophes can have significant impacts on the landscape. In a geological who-done-it, huge boulders found on an otherwise relatively flat surface on a remote island begged the question: how did they get there?
If these were found in Wisconsin we might label these boulders “erratics.” These are boulders that hitched a ride on the huge ice sheets that once flowed down from the north. When the ice retreated it left massive rocks scattered over the surface. But the boulders in our who-done-it are found on an a small island that has never experienced glaciation. Like erratics, though, these boulders are clearly out of place. They are composed of rock unrelated to immediate ground they sit upon nor are they similar to any rock found at higher ground. So if they didn’t erode in-place or roll down from higher ground where did they come from?
They came from below. These boulders are composed of volcanic material along with marine limestone. Rock of similar composition is found well below these boulders’ current location. If that rock from below is the source of these boulder then how did they come to be over 500 feet or more above sea level? Researches speculated that they must have been pushed up from below by some force. In this case, that force was a giant tsunami.
Looking 30 miles across open ocean there is another island. That island is composed of single large volcano and you can see from the Google map below (zoom in on the left side island) that this volcano has all the appearance of having collapsed in the past. That collapse would have sent a wall of water toward the very location where these boulders are found.
This is a very interesting hypothesis for these out-of-place boulders, but is there additional evidence to back up that conclusion? Yes! Geologists set out to test this idea by dating the boulders to see when they came to be at their current positions. In other words, could they determine when the megatsunami happened? By using a form of dating called cosmogenic dating they were able to estimate that these boulders had been sitting in their current positions for about 70,000 years. That dates fit within the dates, derived by several types of measures, for when the volcano had a catastrophic collapse. The overlapping dates for the collapse and the length of time these boulders have been lying in their present position is compelling evidence that these boulders were brought to the present location by a tsunami.
The dating methods and the geological story and described in this very informative video linked to below:
Tsunami-deposited boulders and the Young Earth Creationist’ timeline
These boulders are just another in a endless list of geological features that the flood geology model of Young Earth Creationists (YECs) fails to explain. These boulders also demonstrate that local catastrophic events can occur that cause rapid changes to the Earth’s surface. YECs frequently point to features to geological features and say that catastrophic events must have caused them and then imply or explicitly state that therefore there must have been a global flood as if only a global flood could be responsible for such features.
However, even YECs are unlikely to invoke a global flood to explain these boulders and will probably accept that these are the result of a localized catastrophic event.
Why? Because these boulders are of volcanic origin. The islands are volcanic in origin and have no sedimentary flood deposits on them. Thus in the YEC timeline these islands and the boulders on them must be less than 4350 years (the date of Noah’s Flood) old. The large 10,000 foot tall volcano that created the tsunami had to form after 4350 years ago and then experience a large collapse. The boulders that the wave ripped from the rock face and tossed up on the plains where then exposed to the solar (cosmogenic) radiation which caused elements in its newly exposed surface to be altered.
In the YEC timeline, the volcano must have been formed in just a few hundred years and then caused the tsunami but then the boulders would only have been exposed to cosmogenic radiation for less than 4000 years. How then do YEC explain the extent of that alteration which suggests at least 70,000 years of cosmogenic radiation was necessary to produce the observed products? To explain the amount of radiation measured they would have to propose vastly greater amounts of radiation in the past than the present. But we have many object know to be at least 4000 year old that show no evidence of greater radiation levels at that time.
Historical science or observational science? YECs try to make a hard distinction between the two, claiming that historical or “origins” science can’t be trusted because no one was there to witness the event and these events can’t be tested by repeating the experiment. Yes, our investigation of these boulders is generally within the purview of what we would call historical science. However, I suspect that no YEC is going to deny that these boulders are likely the result of a tsunami and they will probably agree that it was caused by a landslide on an adjacent island. Why will they agree? It can’t be because there are any eyewitnesses or because the Bible records this historical event. Rather they will agree because the circumstantial evidence is so strong. Hence, despite protestations about historical science they do accept many of the conclusions of historical scientific studies. However, when it comes to the determination of the date for which this historical event occurred they will claim that the dating method is a form of historical/origins science and can’t be trusted.
The strength of the evidence for the age of the boulders and the means by which the rocks got to their current positions are well established but the YEC can’t accept the ages so they will denounce the date of origin while readily accepting the conclusions of historical science that a large tsunami is responsible for moving these boulders up the side of a mountain.
To read more about this tsunami:
Omira, Rachid, Rui Quartau, Inês Ramalho, Maria Ana Baptista, and Neil C. Mitchell. “The Tsunami Effects of a Collapse of a Volcanic Island on a Semienclosed Basin: The Pico‐São Jorge Channel in the Azores Archipelago.” Plate boundaries and hazards 219 (2016): 271-287.
Yeah, YECs want to squeeze almost all geologic events (at least before the Cenozoic), into a recent global Flood, but then ignore or hand-wave away all the severe problems and contradictions this creates, including the ones you mention plus countless others. One of the most popular Flood models among YEC laymen (but criticized even by other YECs) is Walter Brown’s “hydroplate” theory. It has so many sources of incredibly massive heat and violence, including “hydroplate eruptions” equivalent to over 30 trillion H-bombs by his own estimate, and entire continents shooting across the globe in a matter of days, that it would have wiped out all macroscopic life on earth. Brown does not explain how any marine plants or animals, let alone Noah and his cargo, could have survived such events, let alone account for the many geologic strata indicating periods of slow, low-energy deposition, such as thousands of dinosaur track sites (most indicating dinosaurs walking about normally), and vast dinosaur nesting sites at countless Mesozoic sites around the world –supposedly left during the midst of the Flood. Sadly, even after I and others pointed out these and many other problems to Brown, he ignored most of them, and continues to promote his book while bashing mainstream science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These type of things are beautiful examples for YEC. They show how sudden instant events are the origin for geological features and not old school slow processes.
I have studied all sorts of geomorphological results like this.
in fact the idea of mega floods in N America is based on how these things got moved.
Actually your article misses this point.
YOU sais in Wisconsin erratic boulders came from slow moving glaciers piggyback style.
there was no moving glaciers. instead wisconsin erratics came ALSO from great flooding water from melting ice a few centuries AFTER the flood.
likewise the origin of the driftless area which is well known anomaly.
You say YEC gets it wrong but you contradict the whole point of the video.
Its most likely, on a probability curve, all erratic boulders were moved by the same mechanism. Powerful water. It only now is being recognized and slow to fic former errors.
Good thread indeed.
Robert, do tell us WHERE you have studied all sorts of geomorphological results like this, and HOW. Did you read a YEC article or two? Did you personally visit some locations with interesting geological features and speculate on how they came about? On the basis of what prior education on geology, mineralogy, or other earth sciences? As it happens, I was studying some geomorphology myself today, with my local University of the Third Age science group. We were given a talk by a member of the group, who took a degree in geology about fifty to sixty years ago, and has kept abreast of developments in the subject since. It was startling to hear her telling us that back when she was an undergraduate she learnt nothing of plate tectonics, because it wasn’t until the 1960s that this concept became generally accepted by scientists, who had previously been unable to think of a mechanism that might split apart continents that had once been united.Things have certainly come a long way in the earth sciences in the last fifty to sixty years.
But not in YEC circles, where any new discoveries or breakthroughs in understanding the underlying mechanisms which have made this earth what it is in the past and continue to operate, made by mainstream scientists, are either ignored, mischaracterised, or cherrypicked in order to “support” contentions completely at odds with the conclusions reached by the scientists who MADE the discoveries or breakthroughs.:( Still, at least SOME YECs do bother to actually provide some such dubious “evidence” to bolster their erroneous assertions. As far as I can remember, Robert, you haven’t ever attempted to do even this much. Instead you simply make your ludicrous claims, apparently in the hope that a particularly naive reader will assume that you must have some basis for them, even if you have neglected to provide this evidence.
In this last post of yours, I was particularly struck by the following gem : “ sudden instant events are the origin for geological features and not old school slow processes”. I look forward to future Robertisms in the realm of biology. How about “Animals and humans need air to stay alive and not old school food and water”? Or “Fathers are the origin for children, and not old school mothers”?
Actually indeed not knowing what mechanism could splitt the landmass apart stopped opposition to a rather obvious conclusion that it did splitt.
The mechanism however was the chaos of the flood year and not a slow process. any movement today is just aftereffects of a great ripping event.
anyways off thread.
geomorphology belongs to everyone. I think i made a great introduction case that great boulders are the result of great movements of water as the first hypothesis. This video etc only did what is not common in N America and Australia etc etc.
Then one expands the hypothesis to show its excellent evidence that boulders, called erattics,in northern america are evidence there was no glaciers moving but instead megafloods from further north meled glaciers. Thus explaining anomaly s like the drift less area in Wisconsin , a state name that came up. .
i think this is a cool YEC contribution to the interesting subject here.
Its science and fun..
Robert wrote: “i think this is a cool YEC contribution to the interesting subject here.
Its science and fun.” Yes, science can be fun. However, what you don’t seem to understand is that doing it right involves a lot of study and work, and presenting actual evidence, not just sitting around making wild claims and speculations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
science progresses on what others call wild claims and speculations. anyways one can only introduce subjects in these discussions.
The cool thing here was the evidence that boulders were moved by water.
This is a great fact and can be applied elsewhere in earth sciences.
They do and one place is in geomorphology of glacial areas where megafloods are now, by non creationists, said to have done much of the work in the landscape.
so , on a probability curve, boulders waylaid about should first be seen as deposited by moving water. not piggybacking on glaciers. likewise evidence accumulating that there never wwre slow moving glaciers but instead a fast melting ice stack that made great megafloods.
Robert you wrote: “science progresses on what others call wild claims and speculations.”
No, it doesn’t. Sometimes out-of-the box ideas turn out to be well founded, but only if they are supported with ample and rigorous evidence, presented in a way that can be properly examined and tested by others. In contrast, you often make a lot of outlandish claims and guesses, apparently based only on a little superficial reading or a few casual observations, and often in contradiction to evidence presented by others or well known to other scientists.
Robert: “anyways one can only introduce subjects in these discussions.”
On the contrary, many of the people who regularly comment here often provide detailed explanations and evidence for their views and assertions, as well as references or links to even more detailed evidence. You often fall far short on these things, and seem unable or unwilling to learn from the examples and advice of others. Fortunately, it’s never too late to change, but first you have to recognize that you need to. I urge you do think more about his, because so far your posts here are not enhancing YEC credibility (or your own), but the opposite.
Robert, please answer Sally’s question about where you studied geology, or whether you’ve done any field work. Those are valid questions, since as usual you make extreme claims without supporting evidence. A vague reference to “chaos of the flood” is hardly that. Do you subscribe to the “catastrophic plate tectonics” theory pushed by Austin and Baumgardner from ICR (but disputed by Oard, writing for AIG and CMI), where entire continents supposedly raced across the earth in a matter of years? Even if it did happen, despite no plausible mechanism and lots of contrary evidence, it would generate so much heat it would boil off the oceans. Of course, Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory where the contents shot across the earth in days or weeks, after massive eruptions of his so-called hydroplates, is even more loopy, and generates even more lethal heat. The same goes for the common YEC claim about vastly accelerated nuclear decay to explain radiometric dates, which is not only physically impossible (without inventing ad hoc miracles), but would generate so much heat and radiation that it would vaporize the earth (without more ad hoc miracles). Of course, there is no sensible reason why God would massively accelerate nuclear decay only to create these problems and make the earth look old. On top of that, their illogical proposals would not even explain the sloping patterns of radiometric dates observed in the geologic record, based on multiple independent dating methods. Maybe you can solve these problems too from your armchair position.
I too think science can be fun, which is why I joined a U3A science group, and read blogs like this and watch science documentaries.I also think science fiction and fantasy, and well written children’s stories, are great fun. However, like most people over the age of three, I understand the difference between science and fantasy. Since Robert can read and write he is likely to be older than three, but he doesn’t seem to have grasped this rather crucial distinction yet. I wonder if he posts on travel websites suggesting that those wanting to fly to the other side of the globe round about Christmas should hitch a lift on Santa’s sleigh.
Actually, he does have a germ of a point at the beginning of his last post. Sometimes two areas of land can be separated from each other by a flood. There is a huge amount of evidence of this happening in the recent past, geologically speaking, to separate Britain from mainland Europe. there was once a land bridge where there is now the English Channel. Water covers what was once dry land. But water does not split apart and pick up continents, or even small islands, and float them thousands of miles away from each other, still with their outlines more or less unchanged. It’s convection currents in the earth’s mantle which did that, and is still doing it. Slowly but inexorably.
no water doesn’t. just part of the flood year the crust broke up too.
Yes britain was separated by a megafflood that crashed through including a general rise in ocean levels.
They dredge up bones still from megafauna that were caught up.
you say you watch science docs. there was one about a great flood in 1600’s SW England that they did on youtube. 9sometimes they have them then delte them).
one of the researchers was a canadian that studied Australian/new Zealand sea coasts and concluded great waves created the coast landscape. including moving great boulders around.
This study is used to make the same case in N America about megafloods and they/I make the case erratic boulders were moved by these and not old school ideas of piggyback glaciers.
Then from there into rejection of any glaciers moving but instead just fast and furious floods.
so working within biblical timelines.
Robert, I hope you’ll pardon me saying that you seem to be very muddleheaded in your arguments. You seem to oscillate on the one hand between asserting things which no one denies, or ever has, as though they were revolutionary new discoveries made by YECs that contradict what you, ludicrously, call “old school” science, and on the other hand asserting, with no supporting evidence, other things which fly in the face of science and the discoveries we humans have made since we first started living in cvilisations. And, what seems oddest of all to me, you often cite things as fact which contradict the YEC narrative that you presumably are trying to promote. You refer to more than one “megaflood”, citing two specific ones that affected Britain, one only a few hundred years ago, one, separating it from mainland Europe, that was still very recent geologically, probably at the end of the last Ice Age. (We know this is recent geologically, becaus the water cut through the chalk strata that had been built up slowly by hundreds of thousands of years of slow deposits of microscopic calcium shelled sea organisms, at a much earlier point when that area was under a warm shallow sea. That’s how chalk forms. To this day the chalk cliffs and stacks can be seen on the coast of Dorset, and the Isle of Wight, hundreds of feet high, testifying to the time it took for that thick stratum to form.) Neither of these floods can be identified, even by YECs, with their supposed global year long Flood. So what is your point? That big floods occur, and move boulders around, periodically? Yes, we know. Humans have always known this. Very likely it was a memory, handed down from previous generations, of some such destructive local flood that inspired the Babylonian flood narrative which the Jewish writer plagiarised and adapted to create the story of Noah. Big boulders can also be moved by glaciers, slowly, and shot out by the more explosive volcanic eruptions, and tumble down mountains in landslides. Humans can even drag them to other places, or create them in explosions. You really do need to get your head round the idea that similar effects can have very different causes. The trick is to work out correctly, by patient, detailed, informed, investigation, which particular cause or causes created the specific phenomenon, in a specific location, under discussion.
The idea of continents moving during the biblical flood has been addressed before. I would interested to know how you would explain the mathematical problems with the idea as described below (copied and pasted from a past comment on this blog):
Continents moved by the flood
“Yes, a recent earthquake moved the crust under the main island of Japan by a whopping eight feet. This earthquake was an 8.9 on the Richter scale and released 1.2 exajoules of energy. Let’s do a little math, shall we?
Geographic area of Honshu: ~90,000 square miles
Geographic area of Earth’s continents: ~197 million square miles
Ratio of the area of Honshu to the combined area of Earth’s continents: 1:2,189
Ratio of eight feet to width of Atlantic basin: 1:653,400
Ignoring the size of the continental shelves themselves, rearranging Rodinia into Pangaea and then into the modern continents would result in an energy release on the order of 3.43 billion exajoules, or about 3e27 Joules.
This is roughly 12% of the kinetic energy of the moon…about a thousandth of a percent of the energy required to blow up the entire planet.
The mass of the Earth’s oceans is roughly 1.33e21 kg, and the specific heat capacity of water is 4,185 J/kg*K. Releasing 3e27 Joules would raise the temperature of the oceans by about 600 degrees Kelvin.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was a side topic. I have heard these criticisms before abot a great united landmass moving would make a lot of evergy. it would be in a period during the flood year. many options can be imagined of how it moved and smashed into each other after seaparation. creating indeed mt everet and friends.
However its not what i think or study about.
This thread was about more limited operations.
Robert, you stated in a previous post that you have done a lot of geologic study. You even seemed to imply that you had done first hand field work and had some formal geologic education. Sally and I asked you were that was. Can you answer that please, or did we misunderstand?
Robert, I think you missed the main point of Joel’s article, which was that the earth has experienced many catastrophes over it’s long history, including large floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions (sometimes in interrelated ways), as well as many slow and routine processes, so that collectively they are far too complex and time consuming to fit into a YEC framework. Moreover, he didn’t claim the boulders in question were moved by glaciers as you seem to imply, but by tsunamis triggered by volcanic eruptions. However, even if all large bounders were moved by “megafloods” (and never glaciers) as you suggest, how does that help the YEC position that all these and countless other complex geologic features were produced in a single global Flood only a few thousand years ago? Or do you not subscribe to that view? As Sally noted, some of what you say seems not only out of step with mainstream science, but what most YECs hold as well.
I have studied geomorphology and more importantly thought about it.
I never said these boulders were claimed to be from glaciers.
You misunderstand the equation.
They are a welcome representation of modern research, better then old school, that figures out they were moved by great water forces. In this minor case they also figure out the origin.
I’m saying this is not only useful for explaining earth landscape as the results of quick actions but also makes a probability curve on all earth landscapes coming from fast actions.
Nothing to do with Noahs flood.
Then I also offer a hypothesis on how this can be applied to the claimed glacial created landscapes of certain areas. Namely the boulder erratics there are themselves evidence of megafloods, from melting ice, having created the landscape. not the old ideas of long time glaciers moving around.
just fast and furious events that fit well in biblical timelines.
I know posters here know nothing about geomorpholgy issues!!
However the equation can be understood by anyone.
Proving things is for other mediums. Not blogs.
You can seek out some things we brought up.
For crying out loud, Robert! Can’t you answer a direct question directly and without trying to fudge the issue? If you have enough common honesty, or caution, not to lie by laying claim to formal qualifications that you don’t possess, why can’t you just admit the truth in so many words? All you needed to do was preface your post with “I have no academic qualifications in this area but…” There’s no disgrace in that. Nor have I, as I think I have already cheerfully acknowledged, not so much as an O Level in geography! We’ve done other things with our lives, or perhaps, in your case, you’re only just embarking on it. ( I’ve no idea of your age.)It shouldn’t be a reason for false shame, but nor should it give us such an inferiority complex that we sneer at those (practically everyone else posting here, I reckon, plus all the geologists of the last few hundred years) who DO have the formal academic qualifications, and the detailed factual knowledge, and the technical know how, and even the professional experience, in this field, that we lack, as though these things count for nothing, or are even counterproductive, compared to our having “thought about it”. Do you suppose that they HAVEN’T thought about it, then, while they were studying or working? Or that thinking, in order to be productive and illuminative, doesn’t need to be based on, and backed up with, evidential data and practical fieldwork?
What Glen and I were asking was, how HAVE you “studied geomorphology”? And what is the source,or sources, of the information that you are relying on? What is your authority, for instance, for your often repeated assertion that there was a global flood that lasted a year? ( It can’t be the bible, since no such period of time is mentioned in the Noah narrative.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robert : “I know posters here know nothing about geomorpholgy [sic] issues!!”
If you intend your remarks ironically you really should master the use of emoticons.
I must cry louder. it doesn’t matter. I make the case on the merits. The intelligence in these subjects is based on the material and thought(a wee bit of biblical boundaries).
Judge these issues on the merits and not degrees on walls etc.
you seem to dismiss anyone who is not of your judgement LEGITIMATE to talk.
People don’t think that way anymore. these are modern times.
I don’t ask anybody. i respect them, for sciency stuff, relative to their ability to make a case in science.
What do you say is wrong with my science conclusions on this subject?
Not whats wrong with me(too many threads)
Robert, you talk about your respect for scientists, but it sounds like the OPPOSITE of respect when you post to a group of people most of whom have the science qualifications and detailed knowledge of the subject that you (and I) lack “I know posters here know nothing of geomorphology issues”. It sounds, at face value, like an insult, and a particularly inappropriate one, bearing in mind your own ignorance of these things. ( It’s quite obvious, for instance, from the “hypotheses” that you have advanced here – even to a non- scientist like myself who has the most basic grounding in these topics – that you haven’t the foggiest about either glaciation or plate tectonics, their causes, their mechanics or their effects on the landscape, the climate and the biosphere, past and present.) That’s why I suggested that if this was a clumsy attempt at a joke, meaning the opposite of what it appeared to say, you needed to indicate this by the use of a suitable emoticon – a winky 😉would probably be best, but you could add a smile 😊 or grin. Or if you prefer you could put “(joke)” after the comment. In speech, we signal such things by tone of voice. On the internet, in type, we need to use other means, or risk misunderstanding.
As for your request that I tell you what’s wrong with your science conclusions, I had indeed meant to do so before, or at any rate engage with one or two more glaring errors of reasoning, but by the time I’d finished my earlier posts it was late, I was exhausted, and my iPad battery urgently needed recharging. And I was wondering, frankly, whether there was any point in my expending the effort, since it seems unlikely that you will pay any attention, still less attempt to understand or respond with reasoned argument . Besides which, it seemed quite possible that Glen or someone else would be posting a reply to you already. But since you ask, I WILL give it a go, focusing on the reasoning itself rather than trying to give you a science lecture, which others can do better than me. In my next post. After I’ve had a break and done some urgent RL chores.
I see Glen in the main thread is engaging with you on the subject of erratic boulders and glaciers, Robert. I’ll try not to step on his toes. Rereading your previous posts, in order to find the previous statements of yours, supposedly scientific, which I wanted to discuss, I realised that it was really difficult to be sure what you were actually meaning to say, much of the time. Which of the following are you asserting? 1. That you saw some documentary by an unnamed Canadian who suggested that certain erratic boulders in some place in North America had not been carried there by glaciers but by meltwater from a mass of ice that presumably wasn’t t moving at all? ( It would be really helpful if you could identify this program or the Canadian scientist more precisely, so that we could check whether we agree that this was indeed what he said, BTW. The conclusions you drew from the opening article on the volcanic boulders are rather different from everyone else’s.) 2.That there NEVER were any slow moving glaciers in North America? 3. Or anywhere else -Glaciers are mythical? 4. Well, they may exist now, but they never carry boulders and have never had any effect on the landscape. There is no such thing as a glacial valley, for instance? 5. That a single instance of a “fast moving” cataclysmic event such as a tsunami or volcanic eruption affecting its local landscape creates a “probability curve” that fast moving events are the only things that can or do affect the landscape?
Robert wrote: “I have studied geomorphology and more importantly thought about it. More importantly, I have thought about these things.”
Actually study is more important than just thinking about things. You’re failure to grasp that seems to be a main reason for your vague and shallow claims on many issues. Speaking of which, since you again claim to have studied geology, please finally give us a straight answer about where and how you have done that.
Robert: “I never said these boulders were claimed to be from glaciers.” Nor did I say you did. I specifically noted that you seemed to be implying that all large boulders were formed in “megafloods,” and asked how that helped your YE position even if it were true. As usual, you didn’t directly answer, but rambled on about what you apparently think may have happened or might explain this or that, without any specific evidence or references. Like Sally, I too would like to know if your remark about posters here knowing nothing about geomorphology was meant to be serious or not.
I didn’t say all boulders come from megafloods.
the equation is that boulders, needing to be moved, only recently is now seen as coming from water power. Before this they invoked other mechanisms. NOW , with this video as excellent example, they see water pushing the rocks because they have a origin FOR the great pressure from water.
Likewise this is a more accepted option in glacial areas WHERE they before only had glaciers. Thus calling them erratics CARRIED by slow moving glaciers.
Then I improve on it with hypothesis , back by my study but not to be documented here, that there never was glaciers moving about but instead only megafloods from melting ice packs. Like Greenland is now packed up.
This is my contribution to the blog. i’m not required to give acedemic creditials. If they were the best you ever saw would it make a difference? No.
i never said anything but i studied these things.
i only offer hypothesis, merits, facts,. and good information on subjects I perceive posters here are new too. No offence. I don’t know anyones degrees.
Robert, knock off the victim act. No one ever said you had to have academic degrees to contribute here, and no one here has flaunted their credentials. What we properly asked for was supporting evidence for your claims and ideas. You say you’ve offered “merits” (whatever that means) and “facts” but alleged facts have to be backed up with evidence, and without that, they have no merit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the reason Sally and I pressed you to tell us where and how you’ve studied geology is because YOU opened that door. You seemed to imply that you had done a lot of research in “geomorphology,” whereas the opposite appears more likely. You don’t need to have formal education to do scientific work (though it can help), or contribute interesting comments or questions on these topics, but you should do more than watch a video or browse a few YEC articles before suggesting you’re a cutting edge thinker or expert on these issues.
BTW, I don’t understand your latest comments about the boulders. First you say you didn’t say megafloods caused them, then you proceed to argue again that they must have been moved by megafloods.
Its just a equation that is now accepted , finally, in geomorphological investigations.
They never before thought water actions did very much. Now constantly, like this video, they find great boulders were moved by great waterpressure.
This is found everywhere from different origins of water pressure. Here from a volcano pushing the ocean and in glacial areas from megafloods from melting ice.
SO now there is a BETTER explanation for boulder erratics in N America. they still try to say they piggybacked on moving glaciers but more now see some from megafloods and creationists can say ALL. The end of the idea of moving glaciers. They were just moved by megafloods.
One doesn’t need glaciers as we have another mechanism.
This video helps with a equation.
Robert wrote: ” Its just a equation that is now accepted , finally, in geomorphological investigations.
They never before thought water actions did very much. Now constantly, like this video, they find great boulders were moved by great waterpressure.”
First, do you even know what the word “equation” means? Second, if you think mainstream scientists never before “thought water actions did very much” it just confirms how woefully uninformed you are. Third, just because some large boulders were moved by water action doesn’t mean that all were, or that glaciers never moved any. In fact, there is lot of evidence that glaciers often did carry large “erratics” as they are called, including unique glacial deposits often associated with them. See: https://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/igs/erratics-glacial-boulders-in-iowa/
In any case, you have to fit all the events and features Joel described into a very small YE time frame, which your sweeping generalizations have not begun to do. Details matter. For example, do you have any answer to Joel’s question: “How then do YEC explain the extent of that alteration which suggests at least 70,000 years of cosmogenic radiation was necessary to produce the observed products?”
Iowa boulders would be my target. i would say no glaciers moved them there. they were the product of megafloods only.
glaciers might move them downhill in alpine areas but i’m saying they are a clue about the origin of ‘glaciated” N america. not glaciers but melt from more north ice packs explains the landscape.
in fact one might say the lack of boulders is better explained by concentrated megafloods.
if glaciers were moving them there should be more
it helps timelines for YEC.
I think the ice age came about 2100BC and was over by 1900BC.
To Glen and Sally:
Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips.
Do you mean we should not bother addressing foolish YEC claims? I agree it’s sometimes hard to decide when it is worthwhile to do so, especially in cases where the claims are extreme not given much attention even in YEC orgs. On the other hand, sometimes YEC arguments can appear sound to laymen, even tho they’re far from it, so pointing out problems to nip them in the bud might be justified.
No. I agree that some YEC claims can appear sound so they should be refuted. Just in the present case… there is not a shred of logic in Robert’s comments. He’s just going round and round saying the same thing and ignoring your questions. At least most YEC claims have some kind of logic to them… albeit very poor ones.
Phil, You have a good point about Robert. I should try harder to ignore his silly comments. Besides it being a waste of time to respond, maybe one reason he keeps posting them is that he may enjoy the attention he gets from our replies, even if it’s negative attention.
I dare say you’re right, Phil. I see Robert has not responded to my last post in the nested thread, asking him to clarify whether he stood by various things which he had previously appeared to claim or to imply. And he’s STILL given no scientific evidence, or reference to a science article, to back up any opinion he’s given. If he’s read the article Glen linked to about erratics in Iowa, the information about the striations on erratics that are clear evidence of glacial transport as opposed to water transport clearly made no impression. So I guess we just have to write him off as invincibly ignorant, because uninterested in discovering the truth.