Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
aquatus1

Proof of Creationism

692 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Rufio85
OK then  rolleyes.gif 

Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA?

We have DNA/RNA and proteins, right? DNA/RNA cannot be manufactured without protein. Protein is coded by DNA/RNA.

It's like the chicken and the egg scenario. Which came first. They cannot exist without the other one making it. For both to exist today, one must have come out of nothing. As that is impossible, a creator of some kind must have been involved.

Sorry, I should have explained the whole DNA/RNA thing more in my last post.

446143[/snapback]

I'm not sure if this is the kind of stuff Aquatus is looking for...

Either way, something didnt come out of nothing. I fear that if I discuss that it'll turn into evolution and intelligent design and not creationism. I'll leave it for aquatus to decide if he wants to talk about this or not.

446144[/snapback]

ok, I'll wait for Aquatus' response. If this is not allowed to be discussed in this thread and someone does have an alternative answer to this, please could you pm me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish
With regards to recent scientific mapping of the human genome. It would present an almost infinite odds at the possibility that we were built by chance. Thus I would place my money on the odds of purposeful design.

This purposeful design may be a creator or creators.

Sorry, but thats not creationism, thats intelligent design.

446142[/snapback]

Sorry, But could you explain the difference. It seems to me if we were created it would be by intelligent design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taustin

How about let's skip the DNA talk and go straight to the gut of possible universal creation and say for arguments sake it was created with "Thought Energy". Willing it to be so - in laymans terms. What if "God" simply willed it to be so?

How was the universe created anyway? The one beyond what we see? Pretty serious stuff. I am not denying the Adam Eve thing but....what if that is tied in there somewhere still?

OK then  rolleyes.gif 

Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA?

We have DNA/RNA and proteins, right? DNA/RNA cannot be manufactured without protein. Protein is coded by DNA/RNA.

It's like the chicken and the egg scenario. Which came first. They cannot exist without the other one making it. For both to exist today, one must have come out of nothing. As that is impossible, a creator of some kind must have been involved.

Sorry, I should have explained the whole DNA/RNA thing more in my last post.

446143[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rufio85

How about let's skip the DNA talk and go straight to the gut of possible universal creation and say for arguments sake it was created with "Thought Energy".  Willing it to be so - in laymans terms.  What if "God" simply willed it to be so?

How was the universe created anyway?  The one beyond what we see? Pretty serious stuff.  I am not denying the Adam Eve thing but....what if that is tied in there somewhere still?

OK then  rolleyes.gif 

 

Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA? 

 

We have DNA/RNA and proteins, right? DNA/RNA cannot be manufactured without protein. Protein is coded by DNA/RNA. 

It's like the chicken and the egg scenario. Which came first. They cannot exist without the other one making it. For both to exist today, one must have come out of nothing. As that is impossible, a creator of some kind must have been involved.

 

Sorry, I should have explained the whole DNA/RNA thing more in my last post.

446143[/snapback]

446162[/snapback]

They want proof. Science is the only proof they accept as being infallible, so I was just trying to prove creation in a way atheists reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePortal
Sorry, But could you explain the difference. It seems to me if we were created it would be by intelligent design.

446157[/snapback]

I second that...what is the diference?

I am all confused now blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_hAiLO_

Man...you know what? My eyes hurt....

....The whole controversy between Creationism and Evolution is head butting and rebuttal....this is all I came up with due to the intense ammount scientific terms I found and extensive confusion in every possible explanation I found from Scientists of both Creationism and Evolution...

Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists(YEC) claim that the Earth did not in fact live as long as Evolutionists say it would which is 4.55 billion years(cheesy).

Proof #1:

YEC's presents an analogy based on microspheres of coloration a.k.a. Halos, produced by radioactive decay of primordial polonium. This analogy contradicts the theory of Evolution, the analogy that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. The YEC's analogy of these granites present evidence of an instantaneous creation of granite, simply put, the young age of the Earth.

What is a Halo? First imagine the Earth as being a glass of water. The glass being the Earths surface and the water being the granite, magma, etc. inside the Earth. If I were to drop a tablet of Alka-Seltzer into the water, the tablet would release bubbles and continue on to the surface. However, if the water were to freeze in an instant, then correct me if i'm wrong, but the bubbles would instantaniously 'freeze' themselves in the water therefore making solid bubbles. The bubbles would infact stay within the frozen liquid and never move.

A Halo is normal known as a Polonium Halo, and they are frozen Polonium Radioactive Traces as seen in this figure:

user posted image

Now take this into account with Premordial Polonium. Polonium, in its radioactive stages, would emit radioactive particles throught the Earths granite. These radioactive particles were personified as 'bubbles' in the example given above. In some unknown reason, Polonium Halos were created in the Earths Granite and have stayed there as the bubbles did in the example given above. If the Earth would be created through a much slower process, Polonium Halos would not have been possible in such a slow stage. Though Polonium Halos were discovered in the Earth, this analogy would indicate that the Earth wasn't born like how Evolutionists would have theorized. And since the Polonium Halos just seemed to have 'froze' within the Earths granite, would indicate that the Earth was created in a short time, representing the Bible's statement of creation.

Sorry if I dissapoint you aquatus geek.gif ....

Links

http://www.halos.com/ (my report came from this site's overview which was the only one I understood of all the entire explanatory community)

http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm

If your curious for more Creationism theories:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

he's got a bunch of 'em

But don't be too jumpy, Evolutionists counter-acted:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crecontents.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html[/url] ]

Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

    * Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.

      http://www.icr.org/

      Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...

      Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)

      Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)

      newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)

    * Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/

      Ken Ham

      periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo

    * Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.

      http://www.creationresearch.org/

      D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin

      periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly

    * Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.

      http://www.drdino.com/

      Kent Hovind

    * Carl Baugh

      Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.

Again, sorry for the dissapointment geek.gif I'm still in high school hmm.gifblush.gif .

Edited by Hailo_hellFIRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rufio85
Sorry, But could you explain the difference. It seems to me if we were created it would be by intelligent design.

446157[/snapback]

I second that...what is the diference?

I am all confused now blink.gif

446172[/snapback]

blink.gif I would like to third that question... If God created something, surely he designed it also? Therefore being both a creator and intelligent designer.

*me ponders what He'd be like in 'changing rooms' grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taustin

People claim to be atheists and I am not so sure they know what they are.

Not bagging atheists, just saying that many times asking for proof is asking someone to prove them wrong so they can justify believing in whatever it is they believe in if you can not. We are seemingly all in search of the truth and isn't that what it is all about anyway?

I am not positive of anything nor would I even try to prove it to anyone. I just feel I know what I know in a very deep seated way, connected to all things kind of way. Creationism may very well be a knowingness or feeling we have about how/why we arrived here and what our purpose is. The complex nature of our beings does suggest a bit more involvement than the evolutional theory provides for me personally. I am guessing that someone somewhere is taking the time to work on a good creationism theory. It just really doesn't matter but seems interesting enough.

I am hoping that someone will post something good soon with some evidence but I am guessing that someone would have to drop down out of the sky and filter the images of creation into their head in order to get a believer out of any of the folks who think we got here through evolution.

Alas, I have no proof!

How about let's skip the DNA talk and go straight to the gut of possible universal creation and say for arguments sake it was created with "Thought Energy".  Willing it to be so - in laymans terms.  What if "God" simply willed it to be so?

How was the universe created anyway?  The one beyond what we see? Pretty serious stuff.  I am not denying the Adam Eve thing but....what if that is tied in there somewhere still?

OK then   rolleyes.gif  

 

Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA? 

 

We have DNA/RNA and proteins, right? DNA/RNA cannot be manufactured without protein. Protein is coded by DNA/RNA. 

It's like the chicken and the egg scenario. Which came first. They cannot exist without the other one making it. For both to exist today, one must have come out of nothing. As that is impossible, a creator of some kind must have been involved.

 

Sorry, I should have explained the whole DNA/RNA thing more in my last post.

446143[/snapback]

446162[/snapback]

They want proof. Science is the only proof they accept as being infallible, so I was just trying to prove creation in a way atheists reason.

446168[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I really have no problems with intelligent design, if that is what you wish to provide evidence for, nor do I have a problem with you choosing which of the many types of creationism you are supporting.

What you must have, however, is a theory. A complete and well defined statement concerning that which you showing evidence for. As and example (let me repeat that), as an example, this is what I would like to see:

Creationism is defined as the spontaneous appearance of the planet Earth and the life on it approximately 6000 years ago.  If true, then there should be conformity to the 6000 year age limit among the geological structures of the earth

X study, done by Mr. X of X University.  Here is a link.  This study shows how the geological creations of Earth can all be accurately dated to 6000 years, with an acceptable margin of error.

1) Tell us exactly how you are defining Creationism.

2) Tell us what part of Creationism you are providing a theory for.

3) Show us the evidence that supports that theory. Please remember to follow the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology in verifying the credibility of your evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

And, once more:

If you believe in Creationism, but do not claim it is real, or do not claim to have evidence or proof, this thread is not intended for you. This thread is only meant for those who make the claim to have evidence supporting Creationism.

For those of you who believe but have no evidence, please understand that we Evo's have total faith in your devotion. Not having evidence is nothing to be ashamed of, and there is no need to post your regret that you have none to show. We understand that you still support it with your faith. We understand that you feel the need to assure us of this, despite not having any physical evidence to support it. We believe that you believe. It's just not what this thread is for.

In all cases, keep it simple. Define Creationism, Explain what part of it you are supporting. Provide the evidence for that support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me_Again

When your a woman, you understand creationism better wink2.gif

I'd better leave now rofl.gifw00t.gif

Seriously, we ALL create...its what you create that counts thumbsup.gif

P.S. This is my humble opinion wub.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

If you and me are made in gods image, and he made us ALL in his image, one would assume we would all have the Same set of instructinos in our body. Why do we not have the exact same genes?

EDIT:

I know how stupid that sounds from a science point of view and when I look at the question I asked , but it was something I thought of.

I dont know if it is relevant of not tongue.gif

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strichar

I am going to try, but I need help with trying to get charts from adobe reader to paste on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish
If you and me are made in gods image, and he made us ALL in his image, one would assume we would all have the Same set of instructinos in our body.  Why do we not have the exact same genes?

EDIT:

I know how stupid that sounds from a science point of view and when I look at the question I asked , but it was something I thought of.

I dont know if it is relevant of not tongue.gif

446219[/snapback]

Although its a slight deviation from the topic posted.

Made in God image, means the ability to create or destroy and the fortitude to accomplish either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strichar

Ok, Something like this would take several different fields of science into consideration to really back up anything so I am going to add this and see if this is something along the lines of what the thread is getting at.

THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY

DANNY R. FAULKNER, Ph. D.

P. O. BOX 889

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA - LANCASTER

LANCASTER, SC 29720 USA

Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism

Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998

Copyright 1998 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.

Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KEYWORDS:

Astronomy, cosmology, big bang, design, age of universe

ABSTRACT:

The current state of creation astronomy is reviewed. Creationists have usually followed three basic approaches in the field of astronomy: 1) criticism of the big bang, 2) the argument of design, and 3) arguments for a recent creation. Many arguments that recent creationists use are found to be rather dated. Many of these arguments are still valid, but must be continually updated to reflect new ideas and discoveries in the field. A new argument for a recent lunar origin is presented. Suggestions for future research are made.

INTRODUCTION

Among creationists there is much disagreement about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. Most opinions can be classified into one of three groups. One group is the belief that both the earth and the universe were created during the literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago. That is the position of the Institute for Creation Research and most members of the Creation Research Society (CRS). A second opinion is that while the earth and all that is on it were created a few thousand years ago, most of the universe was created in the distant past of "in the beginning" of Genesis 1:1. A careful reading of the statement of belief of the CRS reveals that this belief is compatible with that statement. The third possibility is that both the earth and the universe are quite old, in general agreement with what most of modern science claims to be the ages. That position is difficult to reconcile with the CRS statement. The many writings of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb have addressed this issue and have argued that the first opinion is the correct one. This author is in agreement with that position, and for the purposes of this paper, that is the definition of the creation model.

The creation was only the first of three major events that have affected the world. The second event was the fall recorded in Genesis chapter 3. The fall had very strong spiritual implications (the introduction of sin, the need for salvation), but was also accompanied by physical consequences, such as death, the cursing of the ground, and the groaning of the whole world as recorded in Romans 8:22. There is some debate among creationists as to what the full effects of this fall upon the world were. For instance, many suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been operating in its fullness before the fall [57]. The third major event was the world wide flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8. Being one year in duration, the catastrophic flood must have had a profound effect not only upon life, but the shape of the earth's surface itself. There is also some discussion among creationists about how much affect that the flood had upon the rest of the universe.

What modern science has to say about the origin and history of the world has caused many to dismiss these three events. On the other hand creation scientists take the Biblical account seriously, and so accept these events as real and have attempted to reexamine the world for evidence for those events. In the fields of biology and geology much progress has been made. The biological creation model assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with reproduction only occurring within "kinds." The term "baraminology" has been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind. It seems that for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the species, but for others it is at the genus or higher levels. At one time most creationists argued that speciation (as defined by reproductive viability) does not occur. However most now accept that reproductive barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise today, but our model allows this to occur within certain limits. This process operating since the flood would have greatly reduced the number of animals required on the ark.

The creation model of geology is basically a flood model, that is, the antediluvian world was totally obliterated by the flood to the extent that virtually all geological features that we see today were formed in the flood and its aftermath. The wealth of geological data available to us has made it possible for several competing flood models to be developed. The oldest and perhaps the most familiar is the hydraulic model propounded by Price early in this century and again by Morris in recent decades. This theory attempted to explain the general fossil sequence found in the geologic column (GC) by the tendency of objects to be sorted according to size, shape and density by hydraulic action while suspended in a fluid. In recent years several other models have been proposed to incorporate the apparent success of plate tectonics over the past three decades. Two of these models popular in the United States are the hydroplate theory (HPT) of Brown [12] and the catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) theory [58]. Some would like to place the flood boundary much lower in the GC, making many strata post-flood, while others seem to doubt the reality of the GC itself. This is contrary to the position of Morris, who maintains that virtually no strata have been deposited in the post flood world. Such disagreements are encouraging in that they are evidence of the maturing of creation science. Creationists are often criticized for having rigid preconceptions that do not permit reevaluation of our ideas. Anyone making this point has obviously not considered the case of creationist geology.

Unfortunately the situation in astronomy is not as good. As with biology and geology, astronomy has become permeated with evolutionary assumptions and conclusions. Unlike those other disciplines, there is no overall theory or, if you will, paradigm, of astronomy from a creationist perspective. Part of the problem has been the lack of researchers in the field. Most people see the obvious effect that evolution and long time scales have had on geology and biology, and this has attracted Christian young people to pursue these sciences. The result has been that while evolutionary thinking has come to dominate much of astronomy, this has escaped the notice of most creationists.

A second cause for the lack of creationist astronomy is the lack of Biblical specifics. Genesis 1:1 mentions the creation of the heavens, and many understand that to refer to the creation of space. But space (astronomical heaven) was not filled with what we understand to be astronomical bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) until the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19). What, if anything, existed in space between these two events? Does the "whole creation" of Romans 8:22 include the astronomical world? That is, did the fall have an effect upon astronomical bodies? If so, what? Did the flood have an effect upon the astronomical realm? Some have offered speculations on this, but with the lack of Biblical specifics, these are not much more than conjecture.

It should be noted that some recent creationists have attempted to avoid the light travel time difficulty (to be discussed later) by asserting that the mention of the creation of the stars on the fourth day does not mean that the stars were created on that day. Instead, it is argued that mention of the stars in Genesis 1:16 refers to their purpose (for signs and time reckoning) rather than their creation at that time. In this scenario the stars would have been part of the primordial creation of Genesis 1:1 and are mentioned in verse 16 only in the context of purpose along with the sun and moon. It is true that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:16 merely mentions "the stars also," leaving in some peoples’ minds the possibility of ambiguity whether this refers to the stars’ creation or function. Another related variation is that the sun, moon, and stars existed all along and merely became visible from the surface of the earth when the atmosphere cleared on the fourth day. While it is true that a number of Biblical scholars have endorsed these interpretations of Genesis 1:16, this has been done to accommodate the supposed great age of the astronomical world. It is the opinion of this author that these are quite a stretch of the passage and that it is quite doubtful one could reach such a conclusion from the Bible alone. For this reason it is assumed here that Genesis 1:16 refers to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

Paul Steidl made this basic assumption when he wrote what is perhaps the best book to date on creation astronomy [50]. Because this book does not go into great depth nor is a primary source in the sorts arguments that will be described here, it will not be referenced often in this paper. Its great strength is that it is a general treatment of astronomy that covers a broad range of subjects with emphasis given to Biblical and creation interpretations. While nearly 20 years old, the book has aged very well considering the rapid advances in astronomy in the intervening period.

Given these restraints, creationists have proceeded with some ideas. These ideas have generally fallen into three categories:

Criticisms of the big bang

Arguments of design in the universe

Arguments for a recent creation.

Each of these topics will be discussed here. The first review of creation astronomy was the one of Mulfinger [38] 25 years ago, so the time seems right for a second one.

CRITICISMS OF THE BIG BANG

Cosmology is the study of the structure of the universe, while cosmogony is the study of the history of the universe. For three decades the big bang has been the predominant theory of the origin of the universe, and so it is sometimes referred to as the "standard model." While until recently no creationists have done original research in cosmogony, many creationist writers have attacked assumptions and alleged evidences of the big bang or otherwise made use of the work of others that have revealed difficulties with the big bang. There are several creationist discussions of the big bang [12, pp. 21-22], [19], [35], [45].

Many supporters of the big bang model claim that three evidences support the big bang:

The expansion of the universe

The helium and deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) abundances of the universe

The three-degree background radiation.

Creationists sometimes note that the first two items are not predictions of the standard model (for example, see [12, pp. 21,22]. The expansion of the universe was discovered before the model was devised, and in fact the big bang is an attempt to explain why the universe is expanding. This is a fine point involving logic and philosophy of science, and so should be further discussed here. Any model requires the input of facts or data to guide the construction of the theory. In many cases a fact involved is the problem that needs to be solved. In this case, the big bang was developed to explain the observed expansion of the universe. Any number of theories could be devised to explain why there is a cosmic expansion (e.g. the steady state theory). But can the expansion then be used as evidence of these theories since they were devised to explain the expansion? This appears to be circular reasoning. While a good theory must be explanatory, it must also be predictive. The big bang explains why there is a cosmic expansion, but it hardly predicts it. By necessity a theory must be consistent with the input data. The real power of a model is its predictive ability. What experiments or observations could be done that could conceivably falsify the theory? Cosmic expansion is hardly a prediction, given that it must patently agree with the big bang. This should not be construed as a criticism of the big bang model. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify the relationship between observed cosmic expansion and the big bang theory. Some sources list the expansion of the universe as a prediction of the big bang model. It is not; it is, however, something that is well explained by the model. This topic urgently needs to be further developed by creationists.

There is a similar, yet less incestuous, relationship with the big bang model and the abundances of the lighter elements. These abundances generally were known when the standard cosmology was developed. While they have been helpful in deciding which versions of the standard model are more tenable, this does not appear to be a clean prediction either, but is rather more of an input.

On the other hand the 3K cosmic background radiation (CBR) is an impressive prediction of the big bang. The prediction was qualitatively made nearly 20 years before the discovery of the microwave background in 1965. The steady state theory, which was the competing evolutionary model at the time, did not predict this radiation. A few cosmologists such as Fred Hoyle still believe the steady state theory, but have had no success in explaining the background in the intervening years. Akridge, et al. [4], has attempted at least one creationist explanation for the 3K CBR. They suggested that the energy from starlight that was absorbed and re-emitted by dust particles over a few thousand years is the source of the 3K background. But given the very uneven distribution of dust, this should result in a much more patchy emission than what is observed in the CBR. In reality infrared emission from dust has long been observed, and at much higher temperatures than 3K.

But at the same time, this apparent triumph of the big bang could be its undoing. The universe today is arranged into stars and galaxies. Presumably these resulted from slight unevenness, or perturbations, in the early universe that caused gravity to vary from point to point and resulted in the clumping of material into these objects. These perturbations would have resulted in slight temperature differences in the cosmic background radiation. Cosmologists have estimated how great the perturbations should have been, as well as the amount of temperature fluctuations that should be observed today. The COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite launched a few years ago was designed to measure these fluctuations. The first two years of observations revealed that the background is completely smooth (for a brief creationist discussion of this, see Matzko [35]). Only after a complex statistical analysis of the data were any variations allegedly found [43]. Though supposedly confirmed by two additional studies, there is much reason to be skeptical of the temperature fluctuations. First, the alleged fluctuations are well below the sensitivity of the detector. Second, no one can point to any spot in the sky and say, "this is a spot of warmer or cooler temperature" [24].

Even if the temperature fluctuations turn out to be real, it has generally been missed that these fluctuations are an order of magnitude too low for the standard cosmology. COBE was designed to measure the fluctuations predicted by the theory, but the fluctuations were not directly observed, hence the statistical treatments. Attempts are being made to refine the big bang model to fit the data. There are other problems with the big bang, such as the flatness problem, dark matter, and the assumption that the universe would have been in thermal equilibrium when it came into existence. Creationists have made use of all of these arguments against the big bang.

Another problem with the big bang is discordant redshifts. Halton Arp [6] has made a career producing data that calls into question whether the redshifts are cosmological, that is, is redshift directly proportional to distances? If Arp is correct, then at least some redshifts must be due to some other effect other than cosmic expansion. Quite understandably, creationists have made use of this [15].

There are several problems with the creationist approach to the big bang however. First, it is obvious that in some papers creationists have improperly stated the big bang model. For instance, some have assumed that the geometry of the universe is Euclidean, while others picture the big bang as having been an explosion of matter and energy into preexisting space and time [1], [2]. The standard model actually assumes non-Euclidean geometry, and the big bang is not so much an explosion of matter into space as it was an explosion of space and time as well. In other words, there was no space or time before the big bang. Others deride the standard cosmology by asking such questions as "how can an explosion give rise to complexity?" What is missed in this is that the name "big bang" is a bit of a misnomer, and that the standard model has never actually been proposed as an explosion. A few years ago a popular astronomy magazine held a contest to give a better name for the standard cosmogony - no one won [8]. If a creationist misunderstands these basics of the big bang model, then would any of his conclusions regarding the big bang be valid?

Second, many creationists greatly overstate the case against the big bang. In some presentations it has been stated that cosmologists are in despair with the big bang and are nervous to debate the model (a statement that this author heard during a lecture by a prominent creation speaker a few years ago). A typical quote is that of DeYoung and Whitcomb [19, p. 11]:

"However, in spite of the current popularity of this theory, the dramatic beginning of the universe which the ‘big bang’ assumes has proven to be an embarrassment to many cosmologists."

While I share opposition to the big bang model with DeYoung and Whitcomb, it has not been my experience that cosmologists are embarrassed by the theory. While recognizing problems that the model has, most big bang scientists are convinced of the fundamental correctness of the model and believe that with time the model will be improved.

A third problem is our lack of an alternative. Even if we succeed in destroying the big bang, do we have a model with which to replace it? There have been several cosmological models that creationists have put forth (e.g. West’s polytropic model [55]), but only one cosmogony model has been proposed. This is the Humphreys white hole cosmogony [30], which will be discussed later.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT

Much evidence of teleology (design in nature) exists in the universe. For human, animal, and plant life this is very easy to see. If certain changes are made in the physiology or the chemistry of organisms, then life becomes impossible. The same could be said about the universe as a whole. If certain constants of nature are changed, then the chemistry necessary for life becomes impossible, and the universe begins to appear very suited, or designed, for life [16]. The same is true for the earth: if we change its size, composition, distance from the sun, tilt of its axis, or any number of characteristics, then the earth becomes uninhabitable. Secular scientists have spent much thought on these questions, and have dubbed this the "anthropic principle" [7].

The anthropic principle as usually formulated has at least two great differences from the design argument used by creationists. First, the secular scientists that developed the anthropic principle have done so from an atheistic viewpoint. Their basic conclusion is that no matter how much the universe may seem to have design, it really does not. This sets the design argument completely upon its head, and it is time that creationists retake this argument. A second problem is that much of anthropic principle has been developed in the context of an old universe. Some creationists who are comfortable with an old universe have made great use of this kind of argument [40], [41]. These two objections have probably caused most creationists to ignore the anthropic principle. One exception is Bergman [9], whose recent paper is an excellent start on this subject. Creationists are encouraged to explore this topic.

Design is a very powerful argument, but can it be overstated? Have some seen design where none exists? When examining the diversity among the moons of the solar system revealed by the Voyager probes, some appeal to the design argument. The case is stated something like this: the moons of any of the Jovian planets exhibit varying orbital distances, compositions and surfaces, suggesting a very complex origin and history. Because uniformitarian and evolutionary theories have difficulty explaining all that we see, these must be the result of design and creation. Similar arguments are made for ring systems, stellar diversity, and galactic structure. But does something like the orbital distances and ordering of planetary satellites reveal design? If there are ten moons orbiting a planet, they must each assume their own orbits. Though the number of possible combinations is virtually infinite and the probability of any particular one slight, the moons must be in some configuration. In order for a design argument to be valid, it must be demonstrated that any other configuration would not work. The root of the problem here may be a lack of a concise definition of design that can be objectively applied. Progress toward this definition and its application is encouraged.

ARGUMENTS FOR A RECENT CREATION

A much more fruitful argument is the one for a young creation. The universe is usually assumed to be between ten and twenty Gyr old, with the solar system and the earth having formed about 4.6 Gyr ago. Of course this is based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions. Our model places an age of only a few thousand years for the earth and everything else in the universe. Thus a very clear distinction between the creation and evolution models exists. There have been several arguments put forth for the young age of the earth, such as the mineral content of the ocean [36] and the helium content of the atmosphere [54]. Several arguments for recent cosmic creation have been given [44], [46], [47]. We will discuss five arguments for the solar system and three for the universe.

A Young Solar System: Comets

The existence of comets has been used as an argument for a young solar system for a long time [47]. Comets have been known since ancient times. Bright ones are rare, occurring every decade or two. Comets appear without warning, erratically move across the sky, and then just as mysteriously disappear. The seemingly unpredictable nature of comets stems from their orbits being very different from the orbits of planets. One difference is that while planetary orbits are nearly circular, comet orbits are very elliptical. This means that the comets usually travel at great distances from the sun, but once each orbit they come very close to the sun, often closer than any of the planets. The orbits of the planets are nearly in the same plane, but comets can have any inclination to that plane, with some of them orbiting nearly perpendicular to the plane.

For about 40 years the model of a comet has been Whipple's dirty iceberg theory, and much evidence has been amassed in its support. It states that a comet consists of a nucleus only a few kilometers across made of various ices and dust. At great distances from the sun, where comets spend most of the time, the ices remain frozen. However as a comet is near closest approach to the sun, the intense radiation from the sun evaporates the ices to produce a tenuous cloud of gas around the nucleus called the coma. Solar wind and radiation sweep gas molecules and dust particles outward to produce the tail. During the spring of 1996 we were treated to Comet Hyakutake, followed by Comet Hale-Bopp in the spring of 1997.

Each close passage to the sun results in a large amount of material being removed from the nucleus. Obviously, given the small size of the nucleus, a comet cannot survive many trips around the sun. Comets of short orbital period that have been observed during many orbits have become noticeably fainter as a result of material loss. It has been estimated that a bright comet could not remain bright for more than 100 passes near the sun. With a period of about 10,000 years and being so bright, Comet Hyakutake could not have been orbiting the sun in its current orbit for very long, certainly not 4.6 Gyr, the supposed age of the solar system.

If comets date from the beginning of the solar system, and they can only survive 100 trips around the sun, what is the maximum age of the solar system? If comets travel too far from the sun, they will be lost to other stars. Let us assume that a comet nucleus can travel 1/3 the distance to the nearest star and still remain part of the solar system (the maximum distance is probably less than that). Kepler’s third law shows that the maximum orbital period would be about 10 million years. One hundred trips would give an age of one Gyr. This is a maximum age: the actual would be less. This would result in no bright comets - we do see bright comets, so they could not be that old. Therefore we can conclude that the existence of comets gives us an age of the solar system far less than 4.6 Gyr.

This has long been recognized as a problem for the long age of the solar system, so in 1950 the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort suggested an explanation. He proposed that 4.6 Gyr ago during the origin of the solar system, comet nuclei either formed at great distances from the sun or formed in the inner solar system and were ejected to the outer regions. At these great distances from the sun the low temperature would allow the ices to remain frozen indefinitely. Occasional gravitational perturbations of other stars or molecular clouds would from time to time cause comet nuclei to change orbit so that they come toward the inner solar system once each orbit. As comets die they would be replaced by new incoming nuclei so that a steady state is achieved.

This Oort comet cloud is assumed to exist, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it. Of particular interest is the quote of Sagan and Druyan [42]:

"Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence."

About the time the Oort cloud was suggested, Kuiper proposed a belt of comet nuclei just beyond the planetary region as the source of short period comets. For a long time the Kuiper belt was largely ignored, because it was thought that the Oort cloud could explain the existence of both long and short period comets. Since 1980 simulation studies have shown that the Oort cloud is incapable of producing short period comets in the number observed [20], [21], so the Kuiper belt has been invoked to explain comets of shorter orbital periods. In the view of some people today the Kuiper belt is considered to be an inner portion of the Oort cloud. In recent years a few studies have searched for Kuiper belt objects, with some apparent success. One search claimed to have found about two dozen "candidate" members of the Kuiper belt. The word "candidate" is used because none of the objects photographed can be clearly identified as a Kuiper belt object. Furthermore, a follow up search failed to reproduce the earlier result. The Oort cloud is something that has been devised to salvage the great age of the solar system, but perhaps the existence of comets is telling us that the solar system is young.

Slusher [47] and others, based upon studies done about a decade earlier, discussed this argument for a recent creation. A more recent article that includes original quantitative modeling is the one by Stillman [51]. Since Slusher’s work, the Oort cloud hypothesis has been refined, and the Kuiper belt hypothesis has been developed as well. Ejection from the solar system is now recognized as an important loss mechanism for comets, perhaps exceeding evaporation in the case of short period comets. With these recent developments, this whole issue from a creationist perspective has been in need of revision, which Faulkner [22] has done. His conclusion is that this is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the solar system, but that any discussion should include Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.

Lunar Dust

Back in the 1960's estimates of the depth of the dust on the moon were made. This was important information to know during the Apollo program, because if there were a thick layer, the lunar landers could have sunk and disappeared. The dust on the moon results from meteors falling onto the surface. Each meteor strike, no matter how small, knocks some debris from surface rocks, and this gradually accumulates along with the incoming material. If we can measure the rate at which meteors are falling today, then we can estimate how much should accumulate over 4.6 Gyr. Actually, this would be an upper estimate since the meteor flux would have been greater in the past. Measurements of the meteor flux made nearly 40 years ago indicated that the lunar dust should be many meters thick. The actual depth is only a few centimeters, consistent with a recent creation but not an old one.

This remained a mystery until new meteor flux measurements in the early 1970's were far lower, consistent with the measured depth of lunar dust and an old age. Creationists apparently were ignorant of these newer measurements that were consistent with an ancient moon, and were rightly criticized [52, pp. 143-145], [53, pp. 67-82] for this lapse. Snelling and Rush [49] have reevaluated this issue, and they recommended against using this argument for recent creation.

Many creationists have abandoned this argument, but some continue to use it. It seems that there are some questions about the more recent meteor flux measurements, especially when one considers that the earlier measurements that were supposedly too high have never been explained. About the time that the paper by Snelling and Rush appeared, a new, more direct, and higher measurement of meteoroid influx was published [34]. This has been one factor in the rejection of some creationists to the warning by Snelling and Rush against this argument. The newer measurements should not be taken as the final word in this matter, and future measurements should be carefully monitored. Furthermore, laboratory measurements show that the bulk of lunar dust is made of lunar material rather than meteoritic material (the ratio could be as much as 67:1 [12, pp. 213-215]). If that is the case, then the depth of lunar dust would be more consistent with a young moon rather than a 4.6 billion year old moon.

Planetary Magnetic Fields

Many of the planets possess magnetic fields, and it is generally believed that a current in a metallic core of the planets causes these fields. In the case of the earth the current is in the iron and nickel core, while the Jovian planets have currents in a metallic hydrogen core or mantle. As with any current that is not externally sustained, these currents should eventually reduce and then vanish due to friction. Historic measurements of the earth's magnetic field show that it is decreasing. Thomas Barnes has shown that at the current rate of decay the earth's magnetic field would have been implausibly large much more than 10,000 years ago. Magnetic field reversals have been invoked to explain how the field can be decreasing today and yet be very old. There is some fossil evidence of reversals, but the CPT model predicts rapid reversals at the time of the flood, but with generally decreasing amplitude. What is left unexplained by gradual reversals over millions or billions of years is how the field is regenerated once it ceases to exist. It is assumed that some dynamo mechanism regenerates the current and hence the field, but the mechanism has not been identified. In all fairness it should be pointed out that the sun's magnetic field reverses approximately every 11 years.

Prior to the Voyager measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune Humphreys [28] used a recent creation model to correctly predict the strength of those fields. This is some of the more original research done by a creationist, and is an excellent counter example to critics who complain that the creation model offers no predictions.

Interplanetary Dust

There is much microscopic dust orbiting in the plane of the solar system. Presumably this material results from the break up of comets and asteroid collisions. The problem is that solar radiation removes this material, smaller particles being ejected from the solar system and larger ones spiraling into the sun. Creationists have argued that the cleansing rate exceeds the dust production rate [47]. That is, if the solar system is 4.6 Gyr old, then there is far too much interplanetary dust currently present. An obvious solution could be that the solar system is quite young. Evolutionists [52, p. 145], who argue that interplanetary dust is in a steady state balanced between the creation and destruction rates, have criticized this argument. This subject needs a new analysis from a creation standpoint paying particular attention to the rate at which new dust is introduced.

Tidal Evolution of the Earth-Moon System

Due to tidal interaction between the earth and moon, the moon should slowly spiral outward from the earth, while the earth’s rotation slows. The rate of lunar recession has been measured by reflecting laser beams off of mirrors left on the moon’s surface during the Apollo program and timing the transit times. The current rate is about 4 cm/year, which if extrapolated into the past, would place the moon at about half its current distance 4.6 Gyr ago. This distance would not have been a problem, but such a gross extrapolation into the past is not warranted. It is generally understood that the rate of lunar recession goes as the inverse sixth power of the moon’s distance [26], and so the rate should have been greater in the distant past. DeYoung [17] has produced a plot of this functional dependence to show that for the past 1 Gyr the lunar distance has been a nearly linear function of time. At about 1 Gyr ago the slope dramatically changes, so that the moon would have been in contact with the earth less than 1.5 Gyr ago.

It is not only creationists who have drawn attention to this problem. The title of one article by a non-creationist scientist [33] asked the question, "Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?" One problem is that when the moon would have been in close proximity of the earth there would have been immense ocean tides that should have left clear records in the fossil record that are not seen. Another problem is that tidal evolution places an upper limit on the age of the earth-moon system that is scarcely 1/3 that of the usually assumed 4.6 Gyr age. It should be emphasized that this is not a clear indication that the earth and moon are only a few thousand years old, but that in a very young solar system tidal evolution is not a problem.

Evolutionists have countered that due to changes in the earth’s surface due to plate tectonics, the distribution of ocean floor and continental shelves has varied with time. Much of the tidal braking that causes lunar recession occurs in relatively shallow water near coastlines, so it is conceivable that the rate of lunar recession has an additional time dependence [52, pp. 146-148]. This explanation requires that we live in a time of unusually large lunar recession rate. However, several studies of varve and fossil coral growth have suggested that the current rate of tidal evolution has been nearly constant for several hundred Myr. These studies have generally been dismissed, but a recent new study of varves spanning the past 900 Myr [48] present strong evidence that the average rate of lunar recession over that interval closely matches the current rate. Note that this agrees with DeYoung’s contention, that the 1/r6 produces a nearly constant rate for the past 900 Myr. One could argue that the unusually high rate has coincidentally prevailed for nearly 1 Gyr, but with the shuffling of plates that should have occurred in that time, this seems extremely unlikely.

It must be noted that recent creationists reject the age and perhaps the interpretation of the varves in this recent study, but evolutionists are generally not in a position to do so. The topic of lunar recession has not been fully explored by creationists. A full discussion that goes beyond the relatively simple ones thus far is badly needed.

Lunar Ghost Craters

A final argument for the youth of the solar system that we will discuss is evidence that apparently has not been published in creation literature as of yet. The term "ghost crater" is perhaps an obscure one, and is not often heard in the post-Apollo era. Alter [5] defined a ghost as "the bare hint which remains of a lunar feature that has been practically destroyed by some later action." Alter also discussed a number of photographs that included ghost craters.

The moon has two types of terrain: the maria and the highlands. The maria are the relatively smooth, darker regions easily visible to the naked eye. On the other hand the highlands are lighter in color, much more heavily cratered, and as the name implies, are generally at higher elevations. The color difference is due to a difference in composition: the highlands are primarily composed of granite, a lighter colored, less dense rock, while the maria are made of basalt, a darker, more dense material. The density differences accounts for the different elevations between the two lunar terrains, but the difference in cratering is a matter of conjecture.

The moon is assumed to have formed 4.6 Gyr ago with the rest of the solar system. The leftover material at first was large in number and caused a huge amount of impacts on the formed bodies of the solar system. With time the amount of potential impacting bodies would have decreased exponentially, and this would have caused the formation rate of new craters to decrease as well. Under this scenario the highlands reveal a nearly primordial surface, while the maria have a more recent surface. Probably volcanic eruptions overflowed the maria, erasing most of the craters already there and preparing a smooth surface to record any impacts since the time of the overflow.

Why did the lava overflow only occur where the maria are today? A clue is provided by the roughly circular shape of the maria, which suggests that they were the sites of the largest impacts. Here is the history of the moon as generally believed [56]. The moon formed 4.5 - 4.6 Gyr ago. Many impacts followed, but decreased exponentially with time. The outside cooled and hardened first, while the interior slowly cooled. Sometime around 3.5 to 4.2 Gyr ago several final large impacts occurred, forming very large craters called "impact basins." The impacts facilitated the overflow of lava, either by providing the heat from conversion of kinetic energy to melt material or by providing deep fractures to allow molten material from the interior to reach the surface. Either way one would expect the overflow to rapidly follow the excavation of the impact basins. One would not expect that it would have taken many millions of years for the second event to follow the first.

However, it is generally thought that as much as a half Gyr elapsed between these two events [56]. The reason is the existence of many ghost craters, craters that are faintly visible due to volcanic overflow after they formed. Note that impact basin formation should have obliterated any craters that previously existed on the site, so that there can be no craters visible today that predate that event. But to be a ghost crater the crater must predate the volcanic overflow. The amount of ghost craters on the moon indicates that the amount of cratering between the two events (the formation of the impact basins and the subsequent volcanic overflow) must have been substantial. With a long time frame (4.6 Gyr) and the presumed cratering rate over time, one is forced to hypothesize a long period of time between the two events.

Above it was argued that it is more reasonable to conclude that the two events must have occurred in rapid succession. If that is the case, what else must follow? The amount of ghost craters and the brief period of time in which they could have formed forces the adoption of a past cratering rate several orders of magnitude larger than usually thought. At the same time the relative lack of fresh craters on the maria suggest that there was a much steeper decline in the cratering rate than is usually thought. Both of these concepts are unacceptable to uniformitarianism, but fit very nicely with a model of recent creation and catastrophism.

The Age of the Universe: The Break Up of Galaxy Clusters

Let us now turn our attention to the age of the universe. A galaxy is a vast collection of billions of stars orbiting about a common center of mass. Galaxies are usually found in clusters, collections of tens to thousands of galaxies. Several decades ago Fritz Zwicky noticed that the members of clusters of galaxies were traveling too fast to be gravitationally bound to one another. The result is that the cluster should evaporate over a time scale of about 1Gyr, far shorter than the 10 to 20 Gyr year age of the universe. Thus the existence of clusters of galaxies suggest that they must have been created more recently than generally thought [46]. As with some of the other arguments of recent creation presented, this one does not directly produce an age of a few thousand years. Instead it indicates an upper limit for the age that may be better reconciled with a recent creation rather than an old one.

The answer that evolutionists have devised is that the clusters are held together by the gravitational force of unseen, or dark, matter. Calculations reveal that the amount of matter required to do this is many times the mass of the visible matter. In many estimates only about 10% if the total matter of the universe is visible. If the apparent break up of galaxy clusters were the only reason for hypothesized dark matter, then one could easily doubt its existence. Binney and Tremaine devote an entire chapter of their book [10, pp. 589-641] to the discussion of dark matter. They give several lines of evidence for dark matter that are independent of galaxy cluster dynamics. These include the motions of stars in the solar neighborhood, the motions of galactic Population II tracers, and mass-to-light ratios of the central regions of elliptical galaxies. Perhaps the best probes of dark matter are rotation curves of spiral galaxies. According to Binney and Tremaine [10, p. 599], nearly all of more than 70 spiral galaxies for which there are suitable rotation curves strongly indicate large amounts of dark matter. Rotation curves of galaxies suggest that dark matter may really exist, but the identity of the dark matter remains a mystery, despite many attempts to identify it. Only time will tell if this is a good argument for a recent creation. Given this additional data, it is doubtful that the alleged break up of galaxy clusters is a good argument for recent creation. Unfortunately, when discussing this topic, many creationists fail to mention that there is other evidence for missing mass, or even acknowledge that missing mass is a proposed explanation for the observed velocities.

Spiral Structure of Galaxies

Another possible clue to a recent origin of the universe is the existence of spiral galaxies. Spiral galaxies are called such because of the very beautiful spiral or pinwheel shape that they have. The inner portions of the galaxy should orbit more quickly than the outer portions, and so any patterns such as this should be smeared out in just a few revolutions. This smearing should require no more than 2 Gyr, much less time than the supposed 10-15 Gyr that the galaxies have existed. For a discussion of this from a recent creation perspective, see [46].

This was recognized as a problem for many years, but most thought that the problem was solved by "spiral density wave" (SDW) theory suggested more than 30 years ago. Briefly stated, this theory suggests that the spiral arms of a galaxy are a density enhancements, or shock waves, that continually move around in a galaxy's gravitational field. This shock wave would form the dense clouds and bright stars that we see in spiral arms. Humphreys [31] says that SDW theory requires that a number of parameters be fine tuned to make the theory work. If this is true, then the SDW is not such a straightforward answer to the problem of spiral structure in old galaxies as is usually thought. This entire subject is in serious need of a creationist reevaluation. Creationists are urged to discuss the possibility of SDW when using this problem as an indicator for recent creation.

The Lack of Superdeca Remnants

A final young universe indicator that we will discuss is the age of superdeca remnants (SNR). Superdecae are large explosions that destroy massive stars and can rival an entire galaxy in brightness for a short time. In a given galaxy three or four superdecae are believed to occur each century, a number confirmed from the many superdecae that are observed in other galaxies each year. While a superdeca is only visible for a few months, the SNR consisting of expanding gas should be observable for millions of years. Our location in the galaxy does not permit us to observe most superdecae in the visible part of the spectrum (in the 400 years since the invention of the telescope a superdeca in our galaxy has not been observed), but many SNR's are detectable in our galaxy with radio telescopes. In fact, observations in the radio portion of the spectrum are the most common means in which SNR’s are studied.

The visibility of a SNR is a function of distance, size and expansion rate, and the age can be inferred from the observations. As a SNR ages, it becomes more extended and rarefied so that eventually it is no longer observable. Surveys of all of the observed SNR's in our galaxy reveal many young ones, generally thousands of years old. In fact, only a few older than a few thousand years are observed at all. Theoretical considerations show that many older SNR’s should be observable, but observations seem to show that most of them are missing. This appears to be a very powerful argument for a recent creation, and has been discussed by Davies [14].

CONCLUSION

Let us now turn to some problems that creation astronomers face today and examine where work should progress. We have talked about the solar system and the universe as a whole, but we have talked very little about the "middle ground" of stellar astronomy. Stellar astronomers have developed very compelling evolutionary theories to explain the origin and diversity of stars as well as the elements. In the only creationist critique of stellar evolution, Mulfinger [37] argued for the rejection of all of stellar evolution theory. A possible problem with this approach is that the theory has a very strong basis in physics, a situation very different from biological evolution. Faulkner and DeYoung [23], who cautioned that creationists must be prepared to give strong physical arguments for rejecting stellar evolution, noted this.

There are many who reject biological evolution but accept stellar evolution. Indeed, there is some question of the word evolution meaning the same thing in these two fields. Many creationists view stellar and biological evolution in the same light. Morris has argued for the fixity of stars, that one type does not evolve into another. He has also argued that the birth of new stars would be tantamount to the appearance of a new kind of animal, something that the creation model does not allow. But is the birth of new stars more like the creation of new creatures, or is it more like the replacement of dead ones? We know that animals die and so must be replaced, so perhaps this is the proper analog to stellar birth. Some creationists seem to be in the inconsistent position of insisting that stellar evolution does not occur, but when it does, it is actually stellar decay.

While many Christians have entered the fields of biology and geology to combat evolution the takeover of astronomy by evolutionary thinking has scarcely been noticed, and there are few qualified creationist astronomers. Creationists need to do much more work in stellar astronomy. Many questions need to be addressed; we will briefly discuss two. First, are stars forming today? It is generally theorized that stars form from gas clouds. As mentioned above, many creationists insist a new star today would be equivalent to a new kind of animal arising today, and that the completion of the creation week precludes this possibility. But a superdeca appears to be the death of a star, and if death occurs, why could not the birth occur as well? In other words, perhaps the birth of a star is equivalent to the birth of an individual organism rather than a new kind of organism. It has long been known that a cloud of gas is generally stable against collapse to form a star. The reason is that the gas pressure present in the cloud will resist the compression. If some agent condenses the cloud to a certain point, then the gravitational force of the cloud can lead to a star. The theoretical difficulty has been to identify a natural process that can bring an originally diffuse cloud to this point.

Several agents have been proposed to initiate the process of proto-stellar collapse. Two of the more popular, shock wave compression and cooling by radiation from dust, will be briefly mentioned here. It has been suggested that a superdeca explosion near a gas cloud could cause the cloud to be compressed to a size that would allow gravitational contraction to occur. Alternately, for a given size and mass, a cloud could be caused to contract if it could shed some of its heat. This could be accomplished by the radiation of dust particles embedded in the cloud. Both of these mechanisms suffer from the same problem: they require that some stars must exist first. A superdeca explosion obviously requires at least one preexisting star, but evolutionary theories of the universe demand that the elements found in dust particles could only have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis and that the dust grains themselves could only have been formed in the atmospheres of red giants. This presents the obvious problem of where the first stars came from.

In passing it should be noted that some creationists believe that the formation of a star violates the second law of thermodynamics [37], but this is not true. If one starts with a sphere of gas of larger radius and contracts the sphere to a smaller radius, then the simple application of gas equations does seem to suggest a decrease in entropy. It is also obvious that in the lab gases do not spontaneously contract, which seems to be a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. At least two differences exist between the laboratory situation and a contracting protostar. One is that the protostar possesses considerable internal energy in the form of gravitational potential energy that the lab gas does not. The other difference is that the protostar sheds considerable energy by radiation. As the protostar contracts, the gravitational potential energy is liberated. By the virial theorem, half the released energy heats the gas, while the other half is radiated. Recall that the definition of entropy change is dS=dQ/T, where dQ is the heat flow and T is the temperature. Since the heat loss is negative, the entropy change of the protostar would be negative, as it is for any radiating object.

In fact, Mulfinger’s entropy calculation can be generalized to any self-gravitating spherical gas (cloud, protostar or star) with the result (in molar units):

D S=3/2 R ln(r2/r1)

where R is the ideal gas constant, r1 is the radius of the object at some time and r2 is the size at some later time. Since the cloud or star is contracting, r2 < r1, so that D S is negative. Mulfinger applied this sort of equation to demonstrate that since this entropy change is negative, the second law of thermodynamics prohibited the contraction of a gas cloud to form a star. What he ignored was the fact that energy is radiated from the protostar (thus D S is negative), but that the absorption of that energy elsewhere produces an even larger positive increase in entropy, so that the total entropy change is positive.

To emphasize that something is amiss here, let us apply this approach to another self-gravitating gaseous object. Since the announcement in 1979 that the sun may be shrinking, many creationists have seized upon the possibility that the sun may be powered by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism rather than by thermonuclear reactions. Of course this strongly implies a greatly reduced solar age [27] (this idea is less attractive than it once was; for a good creationist review of this see [18]). If the above approach is applied to the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, a negative entropy change seems to be the result. Of course, most creationists believe that Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction does occur.

The last problem that we will discuss is probably the single biggest problem that recent creationists face today: the light travel time. Simply stated, if the universe is billions of light years in size, then how did the light from most objects get here in a few thousand years? Several answers have been proposed. One is that light travels in a non-Euclidean geometry. This was suggested more than 40 years ago by a couple of non-creationist physicists to address a different problem. Though still mentioned from time to time, few take it seriously anymore [3]. There is a prediction about close binary stars that the model makes, and the predicted effect is not observed, but this apparently has not been published.

Setterfield, who showed that the measured speed of light had decreased since the first measurement was made three centuries ago, proposed a second answer. Extrapolating the much higher speed of light into the past could produce a speed that was near infinite in the early universe and would permit the light from the most distant objects to have reached us. In the past 15 years there has been much debate among creationists over this issue, with some insisting that the effect is real and others convinced that it is not. A mini-symposium on this topic appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly a few years ago. The early measurements provide the greatest evidence, but are also subject to the greatest error. It is most curious that the decrease seemed to end about 1960. There are some theoretical problems as well. The speed of light is not a constant that can be arbitrarily changed. It depends upon some fundamental constants that have an effect on the structure of matter. If the speed of light is changed much, the structure of matter will be dramatically changed.

Most creationists have adopted the concept of a fully functioning universe as the best explanation for the light travel time problem. In the garden Adam would have been a particularly healthy male. If we could go back in a time machine and examine him we might have concluded that he was 20 to 30 years old. Of course we would have been wrong, because Adam was created only a few days before. In other words, creation implies some sort of apparent history. It is argued that in like fashion, for the stars to serve their intended purpose (for the marking of time and seasons) their light must have reached earth in time for Adam to see them two days later. Thus God must have created the light in transit.

But did Adam bear the scars of past history, such as injuries that never happened? When the fossilized remains of large extinct and previously unknown creatures were unearthed over a century ago, some Christians responded that the fossils were created in the rocks and that the creatures never existed; they just appeared to have existed. Most people would reject this as absurd. Yet the creation of starlight in transit raises a similar philosophical point. In the spring of 1987 a superdeca was observed in a nearby galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. Since that time the progress of the explosion and its aftermath have been carefully observed. We have been able to piece together many fine details of what happened. But if the notion of light created in transit is correct, then none of the observed events happened. How is this different from God creating fossils in the ground? This idea also has no predictive power like the other two suggestions above, which relegates it more to a philosophical idea rather than a scientific one.

On the other hand the white hole cosmogony of Humphreys [29], [30] is a very detailed scientific model that seeks to answer the light travel time question. As with the big bang or steady state theories, this model assumes modern relativity theory, but with a different set of initial conditions for the universe. One of the big differences is that the universe started as a white hole. Humphreys assumes that the matter of the universe is bounded. He had chosen to call his model a white hole cosmology, because he perceives that the initial condition is similar to what is called a white hole. Most people have heard of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. Most people are not aware that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward. Such a condition is unstable, and so unlike black holes which may exist forever once they form, white holes exist for a relatively short time before ceasing to exist. That is one reason why white holes largely have been largely ignored. Another reason they have been ignored is that we have a theory of how black holes can form naturally at this time in the universe, but not white holes. Any primordial white holes should have ceased to exist by now.

The Humphreys cosmology assumes that the universe began as a white hole. Sometime during late in the creation week the white hole ceased to exist, giving us our present universe. The particle horizon swept past the distant stars on day four when the starlight reached the earth on that day. The important point is that through relativistic effects, time proceeds at very different rates in different parts of the universe. While only a few thousand years elapsed near and on the earth, billions of years could have elapsed elsewhere. This would allow light to travel millions or billions of light years to reach the earth while only a few thousand years occurred on the earth. This all happens because of the different rate at which time passes in different reference frames in general relativity. Not only does this cosmogony purport to answer the light travel time problem, it also provides creationists with a Biblically based cosmology as well.

However, several questions remain. For instance, why does the solar system, which is not the product of stellar nucleosynthesis, and the rest of the universe, which has undergone stellar nucleosynthesis, have the same basic composition? As mentioned earlier, most creationists reject stellar evolution, but the Humphreys cosmology seems to demand that it has occurred. The Humphreys cosmology also demands that the universe is indeed Gyr’s old, though only a few thousand years has elapsed since the beginning of creation in the reference frame of the earth. It would seem those indicators of a young universe, such as sprial structure in galaxies, the break up of clusters of galaxies, and the ages of SNR’s cannot be reconciled to the Humphreys cosmogony. While only six days occurred on or near the earth, exactly when in those six days did the creation of the stars take place? If the particle horizon swept past the distant stars on the fourth day so that the stars first became visible on the earth, then how is that different from those who argue the same thing (that stars were created earlier, but only became visible on the surface of the earth on day four), but that the cause was a clearing of the atmosphere?

While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.

So what is the state of creationist astronomy? We have seen that it has some good points to make. We have also seen that there have been some false starts and some problems. We must go beyond arguing what is wrong with evolutionary models. What is needed is an overall model or paradigm to describe the universe. A formation and history of the solar system must be explored. A particularly important question to address here is when and how the cratering that we see in the solar system occurred. Did the cratering occur during creation, at the fall, during the flood, or at some other time? A few authors have begun work on this question [25], [39]. If we are not satisfied with stellar evolution, then we must provide physical arguments against it and supply our alternative. For the universe as a whole we must explain the light travel time in a plausible way.

Some progress has been made in creationist astronomy, but there is much work to be done. Older arguments must be continually reevaluated and expanded. The words of the late George Mulfinger in his early review are just as true today as they were 25 years ago [38]:

"…much work remains to be done the in the area of creationist astronomy. Christians who have sufficient background in the field who have strong enough convictions to take a good stand on the issues involved should be encouraged to write."

It is hoped that this discussion has inspired some who are already competent in the field to pursue these matters or encouraged bright young people to enter the field for this purpose.

REFERENCES

[1] Akridge, G. R., The Expansion of the Universe: a Study of the Initial Conditions, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 16 (1979) pp. 176-181.

[2] Akridge, G. R., The Expanding Universe is Internally Inconsistent, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 19 (1982) pp. 56-59.

[3] Akridge, G. R., The Universe is Bigger than 15.71 Light Years, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21 (1984) pp. 18-21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strichar

Is that something along the lines of what you wanted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eveningsky339

....Whoa that's long....

Anyway, I have a little tidbit of evidence that may help. (young universe creationists)

The sun loses five feet off it's surface every hour. If the universe was, say, one billion years old, then the sun would be so big that earth's oceans would boil, and life would not be able to form unless divine intervention is involved. Also,

Every orbit decays gradually over time. Take for instance the moon's orbit. If the univerise as old as some old universe creationists, etc say, then the moon would be off in space somewhere.

Eat your vegies, kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I thought I was being pretty clear.

What you must have, however, is a theory. A complete and well defined statement concerning that which you showing evidence for. As and example (let me repeat that), as an example, this is what I would like to see:

Creationism is defined as the spontaneous appearance of the planet Earth and the life on it approximately 6000 years ago.  If true, then there should be conformity to the 6000 year age limit among the geological structures of the earth

X study, done by Mr. X of X University.  Here is a link.  This study shows how the geological creations of Earth can all be accurately dated to 6000 years, with an acceptable margin of error.

1) Tell us exactly how you are defining Creationism.

2) Tell us what part of Creationism you are providing a theory for.

3) Show us the evidence that supports that theory. Please remember to follow the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology in verifying the credibility of your evidence.

In all cases, keep it simple. Define Creationism, Explain what part of it you are supporting. Provide the evidence for that support.

Are there still questions as to what I am looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strichar

Here is more

Creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis;

The Young Earth Theory.

My Evidence.

EVIDENCES FOR RAPID FORMATION AND FAILURE

OF PLEISTOCENE "LAVA DAMS" OF THE

WESTERN GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA

SCOTT H. RUGG

RUGG & ASSOCIATES

1221 OLIVER AVE.

SAN DIEGO CA 92109 STEVEN A. AUSTIN

INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH

10946 N. WOODSIDE AVE.

SANTEE CA 92071

Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism

Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KEYWORDS

Arizona, Grand Canyon, catastrophic erosion, dam breachment, lava dam, geomorphology, excess argon, K-Ar dating, Pleistocene Epoch.

ABSTRACT

Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

INTRODUCTION

The western Grand Canyon contains a unique and spectacular sequence of Pleistocene volcanic flows. The basaltic flows are particularly captivating because of their stark contrasting jet-black color against the light brown and red hues of the underlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. The Pleistocene flows appear as "frozen" lava falls cascading down the walls of the inner gorge to the Colorado River below. They also have a much more unique aspect which was first observed by John Wesley Powell in 1887. Powell noted that many of the inner gorge flows are horizontally bedded, indicating that they once extended across the entire width of the inner gorge, damming the Colorado River and forming an immense lake within the Grand Canyon. Later geologic studies showed that there were possibly several separate lava dams within the western Grand Canyon during the Pleistocene. Recently, W. Kenneth Hamblin [6] evaluated over two hundred lava-dam remnants within the inner gorge between miles 177 and 254 (river miles measured downstream from Lee’s Ferry, Arizona - See Figure 1) and concluded that at least 13 separate and distinct lava dams once blocked the Colorado River spanning a length of time between approximately 1.8 Ma (million years ago) to as recently as 0.45 Ma.

user posted image

The remnants of lava dams outcrop at elevations from river level (500 m) up to near the top of the inner gorge rim (1200 m),and vary in size from a few meters to over 2.5 km long. The tallest and oldest lava dam had a crest of 700 m above the Colorado River and backed up a lake to near Moab, Utah (a distance of over 480 km) which would have been 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell. The dams were all at least several kilometers long, with the longest extending a total distance of over 138 kilometers. Based on present rates of retreat of Niagara Falls, Hamblin [6] suggested that the individual dams required from 10,000 to 40,000 years to erode. Using an intermediate value of 20,000 years, Hamblin [6] concluded that the Colorado River would have been dammed a total of up to 250,000 years during the period between 1.8 Ma to 0.45 Ma of the Pleistocene.

Lava dams figure prominently in the rendition of Grand Canyon in the popular press. Hamblin and Hamblin [7] have recounted the naturalist’s common perception of Grand Canyon’s lava dams being "more than one million years old." Davis Young [17], a Christian geologist writing about Noah’s Flood, has reiterated the notion that Noah’s Flood could not have been involved in forming the Grand Canyon, because the canyon was already present "1.16 million years ago" when lava flowed in and blocked the river. Young’s very precise "age" for the lava dam comes from potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating of the basalt [12].

This long time-frame potentially presents a problem to those who hold to a Biblical view of a young earth and a short time-frame for Earth history. If the Pleistocene is a post-Flood epoch, then the episode of the volcanic dams needs to be reconciled within only a several-thousand-year time-frame, and not the "more than one million years" of the uniformitarian time scale. Does the geologic field evidence support a short or long time-frame scenario for the development and subsequent erosion of the Pleistocene lava dams? We believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a short time-frame, and we will examine several important details not previously considered.

Figure 1. Location and Geologic Map of Grand Canyon, Arizona.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

The volcanic rocks of the western Grand Canyon are part of the Uinkaret Volcanic Field. This volcanic field extends northward from the Colorado River approximately 80 kilometers to near the Vermilion Cliffs, and contains up to 160 volcanic cones [8]. The cones range from 15 to 250 meters in height. The volcanic flows are generally less than 8 meters thick and cover an area of several hundred km2.

Maxson [10] noted that the volcanic rocks consist of olivine basalt flows and basaltic cinders . The flows erupted in association with two north/south trending fissures on the Uinkaret Plateau which extend north from near the rim of the inner gorge. Only a few relatively small eruptive sources occur on the platform south of the inner gorge. The flows average between approximately 1 to 2 meters thick. Some individual flows cover areas of up to several square kilometers. The thin and extensive lateral coverage of the flows indicates that they were highly fluid upon eruption. Many of the flows poured southward into the inner gorge as lava cascades. The most spectacular cascades occur between miles 179 and 182 on the north wall of the inner gorge. One cascade (near mile 181) almost reaches the bank of the Colorado River [2].

The classic Grand Canyon sequence of Paleozoic rocks (Tapeats Sandstone through Kaibab Formation) all outcrop in the western Grand Canyon. The rim of the inner gorge is composed of the Esplanade Sandstone (Supai Group). The wall of this inner gorge exposes strata as deep as Tapeats Sandstone. The broad Esplanade Platform occurs above the inner gorge and is overlain by the Hermit through Kaibab Formations.

The Toroweap and Hurricane faults are the most prominent structural features of this region of the western Grand Canyon. The Toroweap Fault, which crosses the Colorado River near mile 179, displays about 250 meters of displacement and has controlled the development of Toroweap Valley on the north side of the inner gorge and Prospect Valley on the south. The Hurricane Fault exhibits up to 400 meters of offset. The fault runs parallel with the Colorado River starting at mile 188 (Whitmore Canyon) where the river makes a southward bend, and eventually crosses the river near mile 191, where the river makes another turn toward the west. Like Toroweap Valley, Whitmore Canyon has allowed the lava flows on the Esplanade to be channeled southward toward the inner gorge.

LAVA DAMS

McKee and Schenk [11] first studied the lava-dam remnants and concluded that they were part of a large solitary dam structure. After a more detailed study, Maxson [10] concluded that up to three separate dams, two of which coexisted, once filled the inner gorge. Hamblin [6] has concluded, in the most detailed study to date, that at least 13 separate lava dams, none of which coexisted, filled the inner gorge during a period between 1.8 Ma to 0.45 Ma of the Pleistocene. Hamblin noted that the remnants displayed several distinctive types of depositional features (texture and flow thickness) which he relied upon to correlate the individual dam remnants.

One of the most interesting aspects of the remnants is that many, including some of the oldest, occur near the present elevation of the Colorado River. For example, a large outcrop of Toroweap Dam occurs within only 15 m of the present river level. This shows that there has not been significant additional downcutting of the canyon in this area since the time of formation of even the oldest dams. The pattern of preservation of dam remnants also shows that the inner gorge has not undergone noticeable widening during the Pleistocene.

Concepts of uniformitarian geologists regarding the very long ages of the lava dams within Grand Canyon come from three areas: (1) the stratigraphic relationships of the different flow remnants of ancient dams, (2) the durability of slopes within the canyon against which these dams have accumulated, and (3) K-Ar dating of the basalt. The first two methods are strongly tied to the geomorphic presuppositions of the geologist making the interpretation. For example, were multiple dams each eroded slowly at the rate at which the Niagara River of New York is now eroding back the falls?. The third (K-Ar dating) appears to be less dependent on geomorphic presuppositions.

K-Ar Dating of Lava Dams

The first basalt dam to be dated using the K-Ar method was Toroweap Dam by McKee, Hamblin and Damon [12]. The lowest part of that dam gave a K-Ar model age of 1.16 +/- 0.18 Ma (million years). These earliest workers admitted that their age could be in error because of "excess argon", a process whereby the magmatic argon is occluded within basalt as it cools making the sample appear exceedingly old. Other investigators since have also dated basalts within Grand Canyon. Hamblin [5, p. 199] described numerous basalt samples collected during 1972 and dated by G. B. Dalrymple. Concerning these rocks, Hamblin noted that four basalt flows gave "reliable dates" (0.14, 0.57, 0.64, and 0.89 Ma). However, Hamblin noted "many had excess argon" [5, p. 199]. The "ages" for those with "excess argon" have not been reported in any publication. Also, there has been no publication of which criteria were used to select the "reliable" from the more-frequently occurring "unreliable" ages. Recently, Wenrich, Billingsley and Blackerby [18, p. 10,421] reported other "ages" for basalt dams within Grand Canyon, but none exceeds the "age" of Toroweap Dam (supposedly 1.16 +/- 0.18 Ma).

In order to test the K-Ar dating of the lava dams, we collected another sample of the Toroweap Dam about 300 meters downstream from the site sampled by McKee, Hamblin and Damon [12]. Our new sample of Toroweap Dam (called QU-16) comes from the north side of the river just above Lava Falls Rapid (mile 179.4) at somewhat higher elevation than the sample of McKee, Hamblin and Damon [12]. This new sample is very fine-grained and uniform black, without phenocrysts and without xenoliths. It may be classified as a "basanite" (44.3wt % SiO2, 5wt% total alkalis and significant olivine). In every way it appears suitable for K-Ar dating. The one-kilogram sample was milled to -230/+270 mesh particles (63 to 53 microns) and separated into heavy and light fractions by centrifugation in methylene iodide, a heavy liquid "cut" to a specific gravity of 3.20 with ethyl alcohol. The float fraction (called QU-16FG) is dominated by plagioclase and glass. The sink fraction was separated magnetically into weakly magnetic olivine (called QU-16HN) and strongly magnetic orthopyroxene with some Fe-Ti oxides (called QU-16HM). The three new samples were submitted to Geochron Laboratories (Cambridge, Massachusetts) for conventional K-Ar analysis. The results are listed in Table 1 and plotted graphically in Figure 2.

Table 1. Potassium and Argon Data for Toroweap Dam.

%K 40K ppm % 40Ar* 40 Ar* ppm 40 Ar*/40K "Age" Ma

A-Flow 0.9475 1.130 3.1 0.780 x10-4 0.690 x10-4 1.19 +/- 0.18

QU-16FG 1.468 1.751 5.9 3.49 x10-4 2.00 x10-4 3.4 +/- 0.2

QU-16HM 0.693 0.826 5.0 1.49 x10-4 1.80 x10-4 3.1 +/- 0.3

QU-16HN 0.253 0.302 5.0 3.65 x10-4 12.07 x10-4 20.7 +/- 1.3

New K-Ar analyses on the Toroweap Dam lava are listed with the sample "A-Flow" (our name for the published data of McKee, Hamblin and Damon [12]). We recalculated the abundance of 40K and the resulting "model age" in "A-Flow" using the new constants [14]. The recalculated age is 1.19 +/- 0.18 Ma. However, the three mineral concentrates from sample QU-16 contain significantly more 40Ar* than the whole rock analysis of "A-Flow". Mineral concentrates from QU-16 have 1.49 to 3.65 x 10-4 ppm 40Ar*, whereas "A-Flow" has only 0.78 x 10-4 ppm 40Ar*. "Model ages" for QU-16 are 3.4 +/- 0.2 Ma (feldspar-glass), 3.1 +/- 0.3 Ma (orthopyroxene + FeTi oxides), and 20.7 +/- 1.3 Ma (olivine). These ages are strongly discordant with that from the whole rock of "A-Flow" (1.19 +/- 0.18 Ma). Most interesting is the olivine in QU-16, which of all the analyses has the lowest 40K (0.302 ppm), but has the highest 40Ar* (3.65 x 10-4ppm).

user posted image

Figure 2. K-Ar plot for basalts of Toroweap Dam. If the lava dam has an "age" of 1.2 Ma, the three QU-16 mineral concentrates should plot as a line on the 1.2 Ma reference isochron with whole rock sample "A-FLOW" (arrows indicate where each mineral concentrate should plot). Instead the mineral concentrates plot significantly above the 1.2 Ma reference isochron, arguing that the lava dam contains significant "excess radiogenic argon." Can any basalt sample from the Toroweap Dam be assumed to be free of "excess radiogenic argon?"

If "A-Flow" is actually 1.19 +/- 0.18 Ma, then the mineral concentrates from QU-16 should each lie on the line in Figure 2 describing an isochron through "A-Flow". The new data do not lie on that line, but significantly above that line. Why does the basalt of Toroweap Dam give discordant K-Ar "ages"? There must be "excess argon" in the olivine of QU-16. Are we sure there is not "excess argon" in the olivine in "A-Flow" sampled and analyzed as a whole rock by McKee, Hamblin and Damon [12]? Because many basalts of Grand Canyon have been shown to contain "excess argon" (e.g., admission by Hamlin [5, p. 199]), we can ask a more important general question. Has any Grand Canyon lava dam been demonstrated not to contain "excess argon"?

The ages of the remnants and dams were deciphered by Hamblin [6] using both the relative dating method of juxtaposition and the "absolute ages" determined by K-Ar dating. However, the K-Ar dates in many cases do not match the relative sequence worked out by juxtaposition. This may be why most have been discarded after K-Ar analysis as containing "excess argon". The results of Hamblin’s work concerning the relative sequence of development for his 13 dams, along with other important details, are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of Lava Dams of the western Grand Canyon (after Hamblin [6]).

Dam Elevation (m) Height

(m) K-Ar Age

(Ma) Number of Flows Dam Length

(km) Lake Length

(km) Water Fill Time Sediment Fill Time

Prospect 1200 699 1.8 3 ? 518 23 yr 3018 yr

Lava Butte 1050 560 ? Several ? ? ? ?

Toroweap 927 424 1.2 5 16 283 2.6 yr 345 yr

Whitmore 750 270 0.99 40+ 29 173 240 days 88 yr

Ponderosa 840 339 0.61 1 19 202 1.5 yr 163 yr

Buried Canyon 744 255 0.89 8 ? 173 231 days 87 yr

Esplanade 780 288 ? 6-8 13 174 287 days 92 yr

"D" Dam 689 191 0.58 40 ? 123 87 days 31 yr

Lava Falls 678 180 ? 1 35 123 86 days 30 yr

Black Ledge 610 111 0.55 1 138+ 85 17 days 7 yr

Layered Diabase 581 89 0.62 20 22 67 8 days 3 yr

Massive Diabase 548 68 0.44 1 16 64 5 days 1.4 yr

Gray Ledge 544 61 0.78 1 21 59 2 days 0.9 yr

The tens of thousands of years Hamblin [6] has interpreted for each of the 13 dams to form and then erode are seemingly impossible to reconcile within the several thousands of years of the post-Flood period. However, several geologic relationships indicate that the dams actually formed rapidly and failed catastrophically within a period of less than several hundred years. Furthermore, it is also evident that several of the 13 dams coexisted, as previously interpreted by Maxson [10]. We shall highlight these important conclusions in the following sections by addressing: (1) duration of dam formation (the amount of time required for each of the individual dams to form); (2) duration of the dams (the amount of time each dam was in existence after formation); and (3) the temporal relationship of dams (the amount of time that transpired between erosion of one dam and the formation of the next dam).

DURATION OF DAM FORMATION

Hamblin [6] estimated that the total volume of all 13 lava dams was near 25 km3. The flows are composed of olivine basalt, nearly identical to those expelled during the highly fluid, late Cenozoic eruptions of the western United States and other regions of the world. Fissure eruptions of the Columbia River Basalt resulted on occasion in the expulsion of hundreds and even thousands of cubic kilometers of lava in individual flow events [16]. During the historic Lakagigar eruption of June 8, 1783 in Iceland, a total volume of approximately 12.2 km3 of olivine basalt lava was expelled over a period as short as eight months [15]. This eruption resulted in a complex sequence of thin vertically stacked lava flows very similar to flows seen in the Uinkaret Volcanic Field.

The single flow lava dams of the western Grand Canyon (refer to Table 2) could, therefore, have formed within periods as short as several hours or days. The most extraordinary example is Black Ledge Dam, which consists of a solitary flow up to 111 m thick and over 138 kilometers long. The Black Ledge lava must have been fast flowing in order to spread over such a long distance. The appreciable thickness of the flow probably resulted from damming along the front edge of the flow as it cooled and hardened. Three other single flow dams (Lava Falls, Massive Diabase and Gray Ledge) have been identified. Thickness are from 61 m to 180 m and lengths are between 16 km to 35 km. Obviously these dams also could have formed over a very short period of time.

Five dams (Prospect, Toroweap, Ponderosa, Buried Canyon and Esplanade) where formed by as few as 3 to 8 flows. Most of these flows are near 100 m in thickness. Prospect Dam consists of three major flows ranging from 180 to 250 meters thick. The main remnant of Ponderosa Dam contains one major flow over 300 m thick. Esplanade Dam actually contains laminated tephra that passes laterally into at least three lava flow units. This shows that the tephra was deposited contemporaneously and at near the same rate of the adjacent flows. The multiple flow dams would have taken longer to form than the single flow dams, but could have still formed within a very short period of several months, as demonstrated by the development of stacked multiple flows in the Lakagigar eruption.

The remaining four dams (Lava Butte, Whitmore, ‘D’, and Layered Diabase) are composed of numerous thin flows from 10 to 40 in number. These dams probably took the longest time to form. However, the total time required could have been still very short, probably as short as several years. Only a short amount of time (the time required for the upper surface of a flow to cool) is necessary before a subsequent flow covers the previous flow and creates a bedding plane between them.

Many of the dam remnants show evidence of erosion between flows, and also contain interstratified and capping gravel beds. Remnants of Whitmore Dam along the south wall of the inner gorge contain several interstratified gravel beds. Although many of the gravel beds lie on top of flows that exhibit little if any undulatory relief, areas of moderate scouring indicate erosion did occur. Similar patterns of interbedded gravels and moderate scouring are found in many of the other dam remnants, including Prospect Dam and Esplanade Dam. The main remnant of Buried Canyon Dam is capped with a massive stratified unit of coarse gravel 60 m thick and contains blocks up to 1 m in size. Remnants of Gray Ledge Dam are overlain with very coarse cross-bedded gravel deposits up to 45 m thick and contain clasts as large as 15 m.

Erosion and deposition are typically used as a uniformitarian indicator of the passage of a significant amount of time. Therefore, based on this interpretation, the dams would have taken at least several hundreds of years, if not thousands to build-up to account for such erosion and deposition within the dam structures. However, it is peculiar that thick gravel deposits are found at all within the dam structures, and we contend that this actually is an indicator for a rapid process of dam erosion and gravel deposition.

The addition of the volcanic flows into the course of the Colorado River would have raised the stream bed above the previously established base level. This would mean that the regions occupied by the dam would have been subjected to an interval of sustained erosion until the structure of the dam was worn down to the original base level. The dam structure could have grown only by the addition of lava, and not by gravel from stream bedload accumulation. The stream bed across the dam would have been relatively clean of gravel, except for relatively small quantities of gravel material in transport. Thick accumulations of gravel could not have occurred under normal stream flow conditions.

Clearly, the only process that could account for both the evidence of erosion, and, the accumulation of thick gravels, would be periodic catastrophic flooding. During the initial stages of the flooding episode, erosion of the dam would have been taking place by flood bedload scouring and cavitation. During the waning stages of the flood, the sediment load would have dropped out and accumulated on top of the dam structure, where it then could have been covered by subsequent lava flows. Rogers and Pyles [13] have suggested that many of the gravels are the result of high energy/flow breachment or catastrophic breakout of a dam crest. The coarse cross-bedded gravel deposit with blocks of up 15 m seen on Gray Ledge flows was clearly formed by high energy water flow, probably resulting from a dam breachment event.

DURATION OF DAMS

The best test to determine how long an ancient dam was in existence is to ascertain the degree to which the lake behind the dam was filled with sediment. The sediment that a river normally carries along its coarse will be caught and deposited within the lake created behind the dammed river. The length of time required for siltation can be determined if both the volume of the lake and the sediment transport load of the river are known. The larger the lake, the longer it will take for the sediment to fill completely that lake. This test can only be used to place a minimum number of years for dam longevity, because once the dam is completely silted-in, the sediment that the river is carrying will then be transported over the dam. The siltation time required for each of the lakes formed behind the 13 dams has been calculated by Hamblin [6] and is based on the sediment load carried by the modern Colorado River into Lake Mead (refer to Table 1).

Recent surficial deposits related to fluvial-type processes are relatively sparse within the Grand Canyon. The Geologic Map of the Eastern Part of the Grand Canyon (1996) identifies two main types of surficial deposits; river gravels and alluvium. The river gravels are limited to very recent deposition along the banks of the Colorado River. The alluvium occurs in isolated outcrops primarily within the broad valley floors of Nankoweap Creek, Kwagunt Valley, Sixtymile Creek and Chuar Valley, and is found on terraces at elevations up to 1500 m (645 m above river level). Remnants of a thin gravel and boulder deltas are found on terraces at 930 m elevation on both sides of the Colorado River downstream of Comanche Creek (miles 67 to 73) [9]. This was probably a temporary delta into the lake behind the Toroweap Dam. Other relatively large bodies of surficial-type alluvial deposits are found within Havasu Canyon, at Lee’s Ferry, and at several locations in the Lake Powell region. Hamblin [6] believed that this alluvium was derived from deposition within the larger Pleistocene lava-dam lakes. An extraordinary deficiency of lake sediments exists in the canyon of the Little Colorado River. Apart from these few areas, other significant deposits of supposed lake deposits are peculiarly absent.

The alluvium (lake sediments) in the eastern Grand Canyon consists of several small to large gravel deposits located mostly on the west (left) side of the Colorado River. The larger deposits consist of four outcrops within the upper basins of Nankoweap Creek, Kwagunt Valley, Sixtymile Creek and Chuar Valley (refer to Figure 1). These outcrops range in size from 2 km2 to 5 km2 and are up to several tens of meters thick, extending up-basin to elevations ranging from 1285 m to 1500 m. These elevations indicate that the gravel deposits are most likely related to Prospect Lake. Local uplift across one or several of the normal faults of the Grand Canyon, sometime after failure of Prospect Dam, has probably raised these deposits above the 1200 m level of Prospect Lake.

Typical gravels contain clasts derived locally from each particular depositional basin. Therefore, most deposits are the result of gravel deltas that built outward into the main lake body, and are not derived from material transported down the Colorado River. Elston [4] believed that they may record aggradation by flash flooding. These gravels probably once extended all the way down to the Colorado River, where similar small isolated gravel deposits occur. One small outcrop, located where Nankoweap Creek enters the Colorado River, is overlain by silty alluvium material and underlain by gravel which contains exotic clasts derived well upstream of the Colorado River. Numerous other similar small isolated deposits occur downstream all the way to Big Bend (mile 75). West of Big Bend these types of alluvial gravels are not found. The lower gravel units containing exotic clasts may represent the initial lake deposits transported down the Colorado River into Prospect Lake.

The up-basin gravels are overlain along their edges by several small to very large units of talus and landslide debris. These debris deposits are not known to underlie the gravels in any significant quantities. The onlapping relationship of the talus and landslide debris indicates that mass wasting was a post-lake event and may have resulted from slope instability caused by rapid lake drawdown.

The next large lake sediment deposit occurs within Havasu Canyon. The main unit consists of a long thin deposit extending 8 km up Havasu Canyon from Beaver Falls to the Havasupai Indian village. Smaller isolated outcrops occur both downstream and upstream of the main deposit. The sediments are composed primarily of silt and fine sand with interbeds of travertine. Travertine has also armored the surfaces of the deposits in many areas, particularly along the course of Havasu Creek. The main deposit reaches a high elevation at 960 m, with small isolated outcrops preserved on the upper canyon walls at as high as 1032 m. Hamblin [6] believed that these deposits may include material from several lava-dam lakes, the highest from Prospect or Lava Butte Lake. The main deposit at 960 m may be from Toroweap Lake. Hamblin stated that the sediment contains thin horizontal laminae similar to lake deposits in Lake Mead and Lake Bonneville. However, the sediments also contain medium- to micro-scale cross-bedding, showing that they were also influenced by current flow. This suggests that deposition may have occurred down Havasu Canyon as an aggrading delta, and not up canyon from material derived from down-river transport of the Colorado River. Therefore, the deposits at Havasu Canyon are an isolated, localized unit and not the result of the complete infilling of a large lava-dam lake.

A sequence of gravel, sand and silt occurs just west of Lee’s Ferry, near the confluence of the Paria and Colorado Rivers. This deposit occurs at and elevation of 1080 m and consists of an upper gravel unit with clasts over 6 inches in size overlying laminated sand and silt. Hamblin [6] argues that the sand and silt are indicative of lake deposits and could not be the result of deposition from the high energy flow of the Colorado River. However, his explanation does not address the coarse gravel cap which would have required swiftly moving currents. We contend that the proximity of this deposit near the confluence of the Paria is no coincidence and that they are genetically linked. Swiftly moving currents from flash floods could have readily transported the entire unit (gravel, silt and sand) in one or several phases of deposition. Here again, this material is the result of an aggrading delta fed by material down a tributary drainage (Paria River) into the lava-dam lake.

The water level of the lava-dam lakes ranged in elevation from a low of 544 m (61 m above the river) for Gray Ledge Lake to a high of 1200 m (699 m above the river) for Prospect Lake. The majority of these lakes would have been confined to the thin long channel of the steep sided inner canyon gorge. The exceptions would have been Prospect Lake, Lava Butte Lake, and Toroweap Lake. These three lakes would have been high enough to extend a considerable distance up many of the side canyons, including Havasu and Kanab Canyons. Prospect Lake was by far the largest and within the Grand Canyon it would have covered more than three times the surface area of Toroweap Lake and extended well up into all of the side canyons including those of the eastern Grand Canyon, all the way through the Little Colorado River gorge, and over ¾ of the distance up Havasu and Kanab Canyons. Lake Prospect would have also extended past present day Lake Powell, approximately 90 m higher then the present high water elevation of the lake. Below Grand Canyon Village, Prospect Lake would have completely inundated the Tonto Platform by over 90 m up to the base of the Redwall Limestone. The sediment fill time for Prospect Lake (3,000 years) is well below the 10,000-year duration of Prospect Dam as determined by Hamblin [6], and would therefore have had more than enough time to fill completely with sediment under uniformitarian conditions.

Prospect Lake sediments should have been preserved in literally thousand of locations, ranging from very small to large remnants, if in fact Prospect Lake was completely sediment filled. Likely areas of preservation would be within the myriad of protected pockets of small and large side canyons, and on top of elevated flat-lying surfaces such as the Tonto Platform where erosion is at a minimum within the canyon. Appreciable sediment preservation within protected areas would have also occurred from accumulation in Lava Butte and Toroweap Lakes. Because the remainder of the lakes were confined to the steep sided inner gorge, sediment preservation would have been less likely.

The most interesting characteristic of the lake deposits is that, nearly without exception, they all occur in low-lying drainages which are areas of the most active erosion (aside from the main Colorado River channel). Lake deposits are not found in areas protected from erosion such as within the thousands of tributary canyons or, most puzzling, on top of the Tonto Platform such as below Grand Canyon Village where sediment depths of over 90 m should have occurred. In fact, the pattern of occurrence of the lake sediments is exactly opposite of what would be expected. This pattern indicates that the lake deposits are not remnants left over from erosion of a sediment-filled lake, but are relatively intact uneroded depositional units formed by aggrading deltas building outward from the side canyon tributaries into the main lake body. This shows that the lava-dam lakes were never completely filled with sediments, and, therefore, were very short-lived features. We estimate that this relatively small quantity of lake sediment could have been deposited in a period of less than 100 years. Multiplying this value by 13 for the number of total possible lava dams, we obtain a total of 1300 years for the duration of lava dams blocking the flow of the Colorado River.

TEMPORAL RELATIONSHIP OF DAMS

Early investigators [10] [11] concluded that only a small number (one to three) of dams blocked the Colorado River. Maxson [10] determined that only three lava dams existed, based on the presence of finely laminated lake-deposited tephra interbedded with volcanic flows which strongly indicated dam coexistence (found between miles 180.5 and 194.5). Hamblin [6] discounted Maxson’s [10] contemporaneous lava dam theory and proposed that the tephra developed within temporary lakes formed by landslide dams. Hamblin offered no substantive evidence for the landslide dams.

McKee and Schenk’s [11] and Maxson’s [10] premise that only a small number of lava dams once blocked the inner gorge was founded on the fact that nearly all lava remnants are composed of a similar olivine basalt. Although they undoubtedly noted the depositional and textural differences between individual outcrops, the compositional similarity obviously was paramount in their interpretation.

Hamblin’s work does suggest strongly that there have been numerous lava dams within the inner gorge. However, his belief that all 13 dams were separate and non-contemporaneous features is not necessarily supported by the data. First of all, the finely laminated tephra observed by Maxson [10] is clear evidence of dam coexistence. Secondly, many of the remnants are compositionally and texturally similar, which underscores the potential for error in Hamblin’s correlations. Finally, many of the K-Ar dates obtained from dam remnants are completely ambiguous and yield dates entirely out of sequence from that determined by the reliable relative dating method of juxtaposition. Referring to Table 1, the 9 youngest dams (Ponderosa through Gray Ledge Dams) yield K-Ar dates that are out of sequence. Our own date determined from a remnant of Toroweap Dam is older than the oldest date determined for Prospect Dam. We believe that it is not only possible, but highly probable (based on tephra deposits and K-Ar dates), that several lava dams coexisted as either separate dam structures, or even overlapping dam structures.

Figure 3 is based on Hamblin’s [6] geologic map, and shows the overlapping relationships between different dam remnants that were observed in contact in at least one locality. For example, the first mark in the upper left of the table indicates that one or more remnant(s) of Gray Ledge Dam overlies a younger remnant(s) of Massive Diabase Dam. The table shows that there are a total possible 78 different combinations of dam remnant overlap. However, as the table also shows, only 19 overlap combinations were actually found by Hamblin. Hamblin questioned two of these overlap relationships. These are indicated on the table by the queries. Therefore, only 17 dam remnant overlap combinations are known with certainty. Hamblin worked out his interpretation of the relative sequence of lava dams from these 17 dam remnant overlap combinations.

user posted image

Figure 3. Relative Age /Juxtaposition Relationships of Lava Dams.

The upper section of the table shows the contact relationship between the 6 youngest dams (indicated on the table as: Juxtaposition Relationship Between 6 Younger Dams - Gray Ledge through D-Dam). Out of a total of 15 possible overlap combinations, there are 8 (53%) found for the younger dam remnants. This is a high percentage and indicates that the relative sequence for the younger dams has a high degree of reliability. The lower section of the table shows the overlap relationship for the older dams (Juxtaposition Relationships Between 7 Older Dams - Buried Canyon through Prospect). Only 2 overlap contacts out of a total possible 21 combinations (10%) are found in the inner gorge. This is a very low percentage, and the only relative sequence that can be determined from these two contacts is that Esplanade Dam is older than Ponderosa Dam, which is older than Prospect Dam. Therefore, the relative ages of Buried Canyon, Whitmore, Toroweap and Lava Butte Dams cannot be worked out amongst these older dams based on juxtaposition. Therefore, it is possible that these four dams could have been part of a one large single dam complex, or any other combination of one or more of these four dam units.

OTHER EVIDENCES FOR CATASTROPHIC DAM FAILURE

Slope Failures Upstream of Lava Dams

The majority of the slopes of the Grand Canyon are devoid of a notable build-up of talus from mass wastage or landsliding (slope failures). This general absence of talus deposits is an indicator of the long term stability of the Grand Canyon slopes. Several large deposits of talus do occur and are primarily isolated at two localities. The first location is at Surprise Valley between miles 134-139, and the second is the eastern Grand Canyon in the same areas of the previously described lake deposits. Only a few mappable talus deposits are found in the region between these two localities.

The Surprise Valley landslide, which is the largest slope failure in the Grand Canyon, stretches along the Colorado River for over 8 km and is over 2 km wide. It is estimated that the slide has a volume of over 5.5 billion cubic yards.

The slope failures in the eastern Grand Canyon, although much smaller then the Surprise Valley landslide, are also enormous in dimension. The largest occurs along the south wall of Chuar Valley, and is 5 km long and up to 1 km wide. Other large slope failures occur in Unkar Creek, Kwagunt Valley, and Nankoweap Creek.

Rogers and Pyles [13] assert that water saturation from the Pleistocene lava-dam lakes was the instrumental factor in the failure of these large slope areas. Although rapid drawdown of the lake waters was not necessary for slope failure to occur, it would have facilitated failure if drawdown occurred prior to complete slope saturation. The failure would result from what Rogers and Pyles [13] describe as the development of large hydrostatic forces that act on the free face of a slope as the water tries to reestablish equilibrium conditions after a sudden lowering of the water level by dam failure.

The slope failure talus is almost without exception always overlying the lacustrine deposits where they occur together. In relation to this, Elston [4] makes the following statement: " The relations thus seem to indicate that gravel had accumulated along the course of the river prior to the episode of catastrophic landsliding, and that it was a time that the Colorado River was not actively removing detritus from the area. The pre-landsliding episode of aggradation thus appears to parallel the episode of aggradation seen in the eastern Grand Canyon, and landsliding can be inferred to have occurred during the episode of aggradation." This relationship, therefore, shows that landsliding occurred only after deposition of the isolated lake deposits and that it is related to rapid lake drawdown.

Inner Gorge Widening from Flooding

The inner gorge of canyon widens noticeably at mile 181 and again at mile187.5. The widening at mile 181 is directly downstream of the larger and older dams (Prospect, Toroweap, Ponderosa, Lava Butte). The widening at mile 187.5 is also downstream of these four dams, as well as the Buried Canyon, Whitmore, and Esplanade Dams. The widening can be easily explained by catastrophic dam failure and subsequent flooding.

Near mile 183, a large side canyon on the south side of the inner gorge opens along an upstream alignment at the first bend in the river downstream of the older dams. This upstream alignment is anomalous to the normal alignment of side canyons, which is typically perpendicular to the inner gorge. The upstream side canyon alignment is probably the result of flood waters impinging upon the outer inner gorge wall of the river bend, causing erosion and formation of the side canyon.

MECHANISM OF CATASTROPHIC DAM FAILURE

Natural dams are typically prone to catastrophic failure by overtopping. Costa [3] gives two examples of historical breakouts (1982 in Mexico and 1912 in Alaska) from failure of volcanic dams. In both of these cases, the dams failed within a year of formation. The flood from failure of the Alaskan volcanic dam caused scouring of 1 to 2 m and transported coarse gravel with clasts up to 50 cm diameter over a 20 km distance.

Catastrophic overtopping or breachment of the lava dams was probably caused by movement on the Toroweap and Hurricane Faults. Movement along these faults could have caused both mechanical fracturing of the dam structures leading to failure, and lake seiches resulting in dam overtopping. The main remnant of Toroweap Dam shows a decreasing amount of up-section fault offset across the Toroweap Fault, showing that the fault was active during the formation of Toroweap Dam. In fact, both the Toroweap and Hurricane Faults are probably still active today [6, p. 4].

CONCLUSIONS

Several important geologic features, which have been previously overlooked, give strong indication that the Pleistocene lava dams of the western Grand Canyon formed rapidly and were destroyed catastrophically within several tens to hundreds of years after formation. We believe that the entire span of time from the formation of the first dam to the destruction of the last dam could have transpired over a time-frame of less than 2000 years. We consider our time estimate to be generous, leaving open the probability that the total time-frame could have been considerably less.

It is undisputed, by even uniformitarian geologists, that the several single flow lava dams formed in a length of time as little as several hours to days. The larger multiple flow dams (consisting of 3 to over 40 flows) are commonly stacked one atop the other with no signs of significant erosion. Although it is clear that in many instances interflow erosion has occurred, we have shown that the presence of interflow gravels actually indicates catastrophic flooding, rapid erosion, and deposition, and, therefore, does not require us to accommodate hundreds to thousands of years for these erosional features. Catastrophic flooding is clearly represented by the coarse cross-bedded gravel on top of Gray Ledge remnants.

The most convincing evidence that the dams where short-lived structures is the presence of relatively small isolated depositionally-intact aggraded delta deposits within tributary drainages of the eastern and central Grand Canyon. The fact that these relatively uneroded deposits occur within the most active erosive areas, and the absence of lake deposits on the least erosive areas (Tonto Platform and protected side canyons), reveals that the larger lava-dam lakes were not in existence long enough to allow for complete sediment infilling. The small quantity of delta deposits that are present could have accumulated easily in less than one hundred years.

Hamblin [6] believes that 13 separate lava dams once blocked the inner gorge. The relative age of the 7 older dams were determined by only two overlap relationships. This allows for the possibility that several of these dams may have coexisted as a complex mega-dam structure . The presence of tephra deposits within several dam remnants is hard evidence that several of the dams coexisted.

K-Ar dates for many of the lava dams are out of sequence from that determined by juxtaposition. These essentially "impossible" dates show the difficulty in assessing the sequence of the dam remnants, and reveals the possibility that many of the correlations proposed by Hamblin may be in error. Furthermore, a sample of Toroweap Dam retrieved and dated in this study yielded dates of 3.1, 3.4 and 20.7 Ma, which are significantly older then the date (1.8 Ma) of the oldest dam (Prospect) determined in Hamblin’s study. Either Hamblin’s dates should be much older or the samples of Toroweap dam contain excess argon. In any case, the K-Ar dates obtained in this and Hamblin studies reveal the inherent problems of this dating method, casting doubt on the standard interpretation of 1.8 Ma for the Pleistocene Epoch.

The presence of lava-dam remnants near the present level of the Colorado River reveals that the canyon has undergone only negligible deepening since the time the dams originally formed. Furthermore, the normal flow of the Colorado River has not appreciably widened the inner gorge. Under a uniformitarian interpretation, this means that the Grand Canyon has not undergone appreciable erosion at least for the 1.8 million year period of the Pleistocene. A better interpretation [1] would be that the Grand Canyon is a relic flood-formed feature, and, likewise, that the lava dams were short-lived, catastrophically formed and eroded features.

REFERENCES

[1] Austin, S. A., How Was Grand Canyon Eroded?, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, S. A. Austin, Editor, 1994, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp. 83-110.

[2] Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., Geologic Map of Vulcan’s Throne and Vicinity, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1983, Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Grand Canyon, Arizona, one sheet, scale 1:48,000.

[3] Costa, J. E., Floods from Dam Failures, Flood Geomorphology, V. R. Baker, et al, Editors, 1988, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 439-463.

[4] Elston, D. P., Pre-Pleistocene (?) Deposit of Aggradation, Lees Ferry to Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geology of Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th International Geological Congress, D. P. Elston, et al, Editors, 1989, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 175-185.

[5] Hamblin, W. K., Pleistocene Volcanic Rocks of the Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th International Geological Congress, D.P. Elston, et al, Editors, 1989, American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C., pp. 190-204.

[6] Hamblin, K. W., Late Cenozoic Lava Dams in the Western Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America Memoir 183 (1994), 139 p.

[7] Hamblin, W. K., and Hamblin, L., Fire and Water: The Making of the Grand Canyon, Natural History 106 (1997), pp. 35-40.

[8] Koons, D. E., Geology of the Uinkaret Plateau, Northern Arizona, Geological Society of America Bulletin 56 (1945), pp. 151-180.

[9] Machette, M. N., and Rosholt, J. N., Quaternary Terraces in Marble Canyon and Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geology of Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th International Geological Congress, D. P. Elston, et al, Editors, 1989, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 205-211.

[10] Maxson, J. H., Lava Flows in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, Arizona, Geological Society of America Bulletin 61 (1949), pp. 9-16.

[11] McKee, E. D., & Schenk, E. T., The Lower Canyon Lavas and Related Features at Toroweap in Grand Canyon, Journal of Geomorphology 5 (1942), pp. 245-273.

[12] McKee, E.D., Hamblin, W.K., and Damon, P.E., K-Ar Age of Lava Dam in Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America Bulletin 79 (1968), pp. 133-136.

[13] Rogers, J. D., & Pyles, M. R., Evidence of Catastrophic Erosional Events in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, Arizona, 2nd Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, 1979, 62 p.

[14] Steiger, R. H., and Jager, E., Subcommission on Geochronology: Convention on the Use of Decay Constants in Geo- and Cosmochronology, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters 36 (1977), pp. 359-362.

[15] Thorarinsson, S., The Lakagigar Eruption of 1783, Bulletin Volcanologique 33 (1969), pp. 910-929.

[16] Tolan, T.L., Reidel, S.P., Beeson, M.H., Anderson, J.L., Fecht, K.R., and Swanson, D.A., Revisions to the Estimates of the Areal Extent and Volume of the Columbia River Basalt Group, Geological Society of America Special Paper 239 (1989), pp. 1-20.

[17] Young, D, A., The Discovery of Terrestrial History, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation, H. J. Van Till, et al, Editors., 1990, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 26-81.

[18] Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Blackerby, B.A., Spatial Migration and Compositional Changes of Miocene-Quaternary Magmatism in the Western Grand Canyon, Journal of Geophysical Research 100 (1995), pp. 10,417-10,440.

Edited by strichar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unorthodox Thesis

What is the alternative to creation? Evolution.

What is the alternative to evolution? Creation.

If evolution of humans is false, would't that proove creation?

Maybe not. Maybe there are other theories out there.

I believe that the creation did not take 7 earth days. But

7 God years. Since God can travel at the speed of light,

we have no clue how long it really took to create earth.

The Bible says seven days. But is't a day with God like a thousand?

Or ist a thousand years like a day? Or something like that...

All I know is that if the only 2 choices are evolution, and creation,

then by eliminating the possibility of one, should answer the question.

The problem is that all people do is try to disproove theories scientifically. And science has its limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Strichar, rather than posting the entire article from ICR, please simply link the article, and post what you believe the article is supporting in terms of creationism. In other words, what is "Creationism", and what is the signifigence of the rapid formation of lava dams in regards to? What is it supporting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
What is the alternative to creation? Evolution.

What is the alternative to evolution? Creation.

If evolution of humans is false, would't that proove creation?

Maybe not. Maybe there are other theories out there.

I believe that the creation did not take 7 earth days. But

7 God years. Since God can travel at the speed of light,

we have no clue how long it really took to create earth.

The Bible says seven days. But is't a day with God like a thousand?

Or ist a thousand years like a day? Or something like that...

All I know is that if the only 2 choices are evolution, and creation,

then by eliminating the possibility of one, should answer the question.

The problem is that all people do is try to disproove theories scientifically. And science has its limitations.

446247[/snapback]

Norman, congrats on your beliefs, however, please refrain from posting them here. This thread is specifically for those whom believe in Creationism and claim to have evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strichar
Creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis;

The Young Earth Theory.

Ok will do. thumbsup.gif

To me it indicates that the Earth could have formed in a much shorter time frame than 4.6 billion years. Basically it supports the Young Earth Theory. The Idea that the Earth is only 6ooo years old.

Does no one but Aquatus have anything to say about my posts? no.gif

Edited by strichar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis;

The Young Earth Theory.

Ok will do. thumbsup.gif

446267[/snapback]

A little more than that, please. For starters, there seem to be different accounts of what happened in Genesis. Even with that, not everyone here is familiar with the Bible. Never assume someone will know what you are talking about. Define exactly what you will be defending.

Incidentally, this is open to any Creationism Mythology, be it Hindu, Muslim, or Judeo-Christian. Simply provide a detailed description as it pertains to your theory, describe your theory and its signifigance to creationism, and provide the evidence to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JennRose

Ok, here's my little bit of input. I am diest, so am not going to try to argue anything through any set of religious ideas, and I also agree with the theory of evolution:

There had to be an original creator. I can accept and embrace the idea that a single-celled organism can become more complex over eons, but there is nothing simpler than a cell. A cell is a cell, so something had to create the cell fully formed and functional. The spark of life had to start from nothing, hence created.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I was under the impression by 'creationism' you were wanting evidence of a creator, no matter the belief. But I suppose as I read over the posts on this page that you mean 'Creationists', or those who subscribe to the ideas of Genesis. If so, I apologize for my pointless post.

Edited by JennRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.