References The Appalachian scientifically studied for decades or … · 2018-12-17 ·...
2
14 JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(1) 2015 || PERSPECTIVES The Appalachian Mountains are young Michael J. Oard I n the United States, most students learned in their grade school ge- ography class that the Appalachian Mountains have the appearance of old age since they are rather rounded or ‘subdued’. They may have also learned the Appalachians are predominantly composed of Paleozoic sedimentary rock. However, there are places in the Appalachian Mountains that are rugged, indicative of recent uplift: “Conventional wisdom holds that the southern Appalachian Mount- ains have not experienced a sig- nificant phase of tectonic forcing for >200 myr; yet, they share many characteristics with tectonically active settings, including locally high topographic relief, steep slopes, incised river gorges, and frequent mass-wasting.” 1 There are places with steep vertical cliffs 600 m high in western North Carolina (figure 1). Vertical faces erode much faster than horizontal surfaces, largely from rockfall. ‘Old’ terrains should not have cliffs. The vertically walled canyons should have become V-shaped valleys long ago if uniformitarian dating were correct. 2 ‘Solving’ the Appalachian problem The Appalachian problem was ‘solved’ by secular scientists postu- lating more than one uplift, the last called a ‘rejuvenation’. 3 The au- thors use the Cullasaja River basin in Tennessee and North Carolina to show that the most recent uplift was in the late Miocene, about 8.5 million years ago. They noticed that
Transcript of References The Appalachian scientifically studied for decades or … · 2018-12-17 ·...
14
JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(1) 2015 || PERSPECTIVES
Disciplines that have been scientifically studied for decades or even centuries, can encounter previously unobserved and possibly ephemeral processes under novel circumstances.
In considering how such a principle might be applied, it becomes evident that it is of more use to uniformitarians than to creationists. This is because creationists, as a general rule, rely on observed data, moderated by their understanding of the biblical text, to formulate and, if necessary, modify their hypotheses. A prime example of this is the progressive development of a creationist cosmology by Dr Russ Humphries from first proposals,13 via interaction with other creationist cosmologists,14 to current thinking.15
Conversely, when, as so often happens, observed reality fails to match theoretical expectations, the uniformitarian response can be one of:• ignore the data (e.g. 14C in dia
monds16)• defer consideration of the obser
vations pending further research17
• explain the data away (e.g. ex plaining anomalous radiometric dates by ‘resetting’ of radiometric clocks by recrystallization—or any one of some 400 other documented18 ‘explanations’)
• declare whatever is missing to be present but unobservable (e.g. dark matter 19 and paraconformities20)
• invent a materialistic explanation, “no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated”.21
The Da’an Chi Gorge phenomenon illustrates yet again that the natural world is replete with instances of processes that do not necessarily conform to the accepted scientific dogma of the day. Progress in science might be better served by openminded consideration of the observations rather than by a rigid prior commitment to a particular philosophical position.
References1. Science & Environment, BBC News, “Taiwan’s
‘vanishing canyon’ erasing quake record”, 18 August 2014.
2. Cook, K.L., Turowski, J.M. and Hovius, N., River gorge eradication by downstream sweep erosion, Nature Geoscience, Advance Online Publication, 17.08.2014, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2224.
3. Austin, S.A., Rapid erosion at Mount St Helens, Institute for Creation Research, Technical Papers, El Cajon, CA, 1984.
4. Doyle, S., A gorge in three days! Creation 31(3):32–33, 2007; creation.com/agorgeinthreedays.
5. Morris, J., A canyon in six days! Creation 24(4): 54–55, 2002; creation.com/acanyoninsixdays.
6. Austin, S.A., Washington Scablands and the Lake Missoula Flood, Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org/article/washingtonscablandslakemissoula-flood, 10 October 2005.
7. Oard, M.J., Evidence for Only One Gi gantic Lake Missoula Flood; in: Ivey, R.L. (Ed.), The Fifth International Confer ence on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 219–231, 2003.
8. Oard, M.J., Only one Lake Missouila Flood, J. Creation 14(2):14–17, 2000; creation.com/only-one-lake-missoula-flood.
9. Gupta, S. and Collier, J., Megaflood Britain, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College, London.
10. Silvestru, E., Wild, wild floods! J. Creation 22(1): 12–14, 2008. See also précis of his article at creation.com/north-sea-megaflood.
11. Bonneville flood, wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonneville_flood&oldid=586345600, 16 December 2013; accessed 1 September 2014.
12. O’Connor, J.E., Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Geomorphology of the Bonneville Flood, Geological Society of America, Special Papers 274:1–84, 1993.
13. Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.
14. Hartnett, J.G., Tension, not extension in creation cosmology, creation.com/tensionnotextensionincreationcosmology, 12 August 2014.
15. Humphreys, D.R., New view of gravity explains cosmic microwave background radiation, J. Creation 28(3):106–114, 2014.
16. Baumgardner, J.R., 14C evidence for a recent global Flood and a young earth; in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 587–630, 2005.
17. Silvestru, E., The evolutionary paradox of the Roraima pollen of South America is still not solved, J. Creation 26(3):54–59, 2012.
18. Woodmoorappe J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, The Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1999.
19. Hartnett, J., Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, 2nd edn., Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, GA, pp. 25–37, 2010.
20. Roth, A.A., ‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages, J. Creation 23(2): 76–81, 2009.
21. Lewontin, R.C., Billions and Billions of Demons; in: The New York Review of Books, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
The Appalachian Mountains are youngMichael J. Oard
In the United States, most students learned in their grade school ge
ography class that the Appalachian Mountains have the appearance of old age since they are rather rounded or ‘subdued’. They may have also learned the Appalachians are predominantly composed of Paleozoic sedimentary rock. However, there are places in the Appalachian Mountains that are rugged, indicative of recent uplift:
“Conventional wisdom holds that the southern Appalachian Mountains have not experienced a significant phase of tectonic forcing for >200 myr; yet, they share many characteristics with tectonically active settings, including locally high topographic relief, steep slopes, incised river gorges, and frequent masswasting.”1
There are places with steep vertical cliffs 600 m high in western North Carolina (figure 1). Vertical faces erode much faster than horizontal surfaces, largely from rockfall. ‘Old’ terrains should not have cliffs. The vertically walled canyons should have become Vshaped valleys long ago if uniformitarian dating were correct.2
‘Solving’ the Appalachian problem
The Appalachian problem was ‘solved’ by secular scientists postulating more than one uplift, the last called a ‘rejuvenation’.3 The authors use the Cullasaja River basin in Tennessee and North Carolina to show that the most recent uplift was in the late Miocene, about 8.5 million years ago. They noticed that
15
|| JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(1) 2015PERSPECTIVES
the Cullasaja River and its tributaries have numerous knickpoints and sharp convexities in an otherwise concaveup longitudinal river and stream profile. Knickpoints are characterized by waterfalls, rapids, or steep gradients in the river or stream. The authors analyze and eliminate all other mechanisms for knickpoint generation except uplift. They determine the time of uplift by using the regression of tributary knickpoints that begin at the junction with the main river and migrate headward. This calculation is based on uniformitarian dates and slow erosion over millions of years, giving it a late Miocene date.
Flood geology reinterpretation
One aspect of Flood geology is to reinterpret observations made by uni formitarians.4 The secular Appalachian data looks ‘solid’, so how would we go about reinterpreting the data? The beginning point would be to place the erosion of the Appalachian Mountains within the Biblical Geological Model.5 Within this framework the erosion of the Appalachian Mountains and the development of the Cullasaja River Basin would have occurred during the Recessive Stage of the Flood. The erosion in the central Appalachians is around 6,000 m, based on the rank (i.e. the stage attained in the progression from vegetation to anthracite) of coal and the amount of sedimentary rocks and sediments on the continental margin.6,7 This estimate is close to the uniformitarian estimate.8 Erosion this deep and extensive would be characterized by the Abative or Sheet Flow Phase during the early part of the Recessional Stage of the Noahic Flood.6,9 Such activity would have occurred during differential uplift of the Appalachians and the sinking of the continental margin by about 14 km!10
The Cullasaja River valley, as well as other river valleys, display more
linear forms of erosion that would be placed in the Dispersive or Channelized Flow Phase, during the latter half of the Recessional Stage. The Cullasaja River Valley was carved after the general erosion of the Appalachians. It would be at this time that the knickpoints retreated rapidly headward, close to where they exist today, indicating that the Appalachian Mountains are young. It was also at this time that hundreds of water and wind gaps were formed by channelized erosion across ridges.11,12 After the Flood the knickpoints would have retreated only slightly.
References1. Gallen, S.F., Wegmann, K.W. and Bohnenstiehl,
D.R., Miocene rejuvenation of topographic relief in the southern Appalachians, GSA Today 23(2):4, 2013.
2. Twidale, C.R., Geomorphology, Thomas Nelson, Sydney, Australia, p. 165, 1968.
3. Gallen et al., ref. 1, pp. 4–10.
4. A problem with geological observations is that they sometimes contain a select sample and cause a bias to creep into the interpretation. This is an excellent reason for creationists to do their own field work in geology and paleontology.
Figure 1. Blue Ridge Escarpment, a 600-m high cliff at Caesars Head State Park, North Carolina (view southeast), is an example of a steep escarpment in the Appalachian Mountains.
5. Walker, T., A biblical geologic model; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 581–592, 1994; biblicalgeology.net/Model/AbiblicalgeologicalmodelICCpaper.html.
6. Oard, M.J., Origin of Appalachian geomorphology Part I: erosion by retreating Floodwater and the formation of the continental margin, Creation Research Society Quarterly 48(1):33–48, 2011.
7. Oard, M.J., Earth’s Surface Shaped by Genesis Flood Runoff, 2013, michael.oards.net/GenesisFloodRunoff.htm (especially chapter 8 and appendix 4).
8. Pazzaglia, F.J. and Gardner, T.W., Late Cenozoic landscape evolution of the US Atlantic passive margin: insights into a North American Great Escarpment; in: Summerfield, M.A. (Ed.), Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 287, 2000.
9. Oard, M.J., Origin of Appalachian geomorphology Part II: surficial erosion surfaces, Creation Research Society Quarterly 48(2): 105–122, 2011.
10. Poag, C.W., U.S. middle Atlantic continental rise: provenance, dispersal, and deposition of Jurassic to Quaternary sediments; in: Poag, C.W. and de Graciansky, P.C. (Eds.), Geological Evolution of Atlantic Continental Rises, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 100–156, 1992.
11. Oard, M.J., Origin of Appalachian geomorphology Part III: channelized erosion late in the Flood, Creation Research Society Quarterly 48(4):329–351, 2012.
12. Oard, ref. 7, especially chap. 77.
