To : LEON BROOKS Subj: TESTABLE! LEON BROOKS to KELSEY BJARNASON on 101094 17:33 re: TESTA

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: LARRY SITES Posted: 13 Oct 94 10:52 To : LEON BROOKS Subj: TESTABLE! LEON BROOKS to KELSEY BJARNASON on 10-10-94 17:33 re: TESTABLE! LB>Fourth, go to any large overthrust. The Lewis overthrust is a classic LB>example. You will find a lighter rock on top of a darker rock which is LB>"hundreds of millions of years" younger and has the fossils to prove it LB>: The interface is knife-thin. _Real_ overthrusts have substantial crus LB>zones (Lewis should have one several Km thick). The only geology which LB>the evidence involves Noah's flood. BUNK! You have been lied to. See below and post titled Lewis overthrust: Message # 7954 Area : 62 EVOLUTION From : Rob Fargher 07-10-93 06:38 To : Jack Brannan Subj : 1/9 Dishonesty ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack, a while ago the subject of dishonesty in the creationist camp came up. You expressed a desire to be further informed. The subject of intellectual dishonesty is a particular bugbear of mine and, to me, is one of the key characteristics (and I use the word `key' in its taxonomic sense) of Sci/Cre(tinism). Brent Vickers, of UC Irvine (I think) maintains FAQ and other relevant files from talk.origins. I grabbed a copy of the file on creationist dishonesty, which I post below and in following messages. However, there is one point that I'd like to state: Although the file outlines some specific instances of creationist dishonesty by individuals (and totally discredits Duane T. Gish), those of us on the side of science realize that the whole Sci/Creationist movement is one big lie! The major difference between Lysenko and Gish/Morris is that Lysenko had the power to enforce his lies. The importance of the current science vs creation debate is to ensure that Gish/Morris and their ilk never do. ====================================================================== Authors: Robert Zuber (zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu), Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu), Andy Peters (adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu), Chris Stassen (stassen@alc.com) Title: Various Examples of Verifiable Creationist Dishonesty ====================================================================== By Rob Zuber: ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes: >"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber >scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people >(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and >*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face >God. Even when no one else is looking, God is. Incredible! As you said, 'Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face God'. Will you accept the following as 'falsifying evidence'? ----------- I'm quoting a second-hand source, so flame me if you will. I will, however, at least list the primary sources so you can check yourself. The point here is about creationist misquoting, nothing else. The following is from source [1] (the second-hand one). ======================= QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places where the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean geologists have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time scale so as to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence so as to prove evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When the fossils are in the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the "older" rocks were shoved on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting), or else that the strata were overturned (recumbent folds), even though there is no physical evidence for these processes. In particular, Whitcomb and Morris [2] maintain the physical evidence proves the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never slid an inch. How do you reply? ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly out of context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to do with fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real. Let us consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've deleted the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail. The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists of the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were shoved along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but viciously crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak [3] wrote in their article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks along the thrust fault are badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p. 187) lift the following words from this article: "Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago." But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that Whitcomb and Morris quoted it out of context: ".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east." Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in the thrust fault are: "The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias Pass, shown in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks beneath......" [Two more quotations deleted] ============================ Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have *completely* misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they quoted to the effect that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even though that paper appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now it's fine if creationists want to disagree with certain conclusions if they can back it up with evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper that completely contradicts your view? [1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology". _Creation/Evolution_, Issue II, Fall 1980, pp. 21-22. [2] Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961. [3] Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K (1959). Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * ...be transformed by renewing your mind...Romans 12:2 --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Message #1266 [Holysmoke] From: LARRY SITES Posted: 13 Oct 94 10:56 To : LEON BROOKS Subj: Lewis overthrust LEON BROOKS to KELSEY BJARNASON on 10-10-94 17:33 re: TESTABLE! LB>Fourth, go to any large overthrust. The Lewis overthrust is a classic LB>example. You will find a lighter rock on top of a darker rock which is LB>"hundreds of millions of years" younger and has the fossils to prove it LB>: The interface is knife-thin. _Real_ overthrusts have substantial crus LB>zones (Lewis should have one several Km thick). The only geology which LB>the evidence involves Noah's flood. See my post titled Testable about why this is a lie. Below is the scientific explaination. From the InterNet talk.origins faq archives, file name: lewis-overthrust. ====================================================================== Author: Joel Hanes (jjh00@eng.amdahl.com) Title: Geology in Error?: The Lewis Overthrust ====================================================================== >In the rocky mountains, from Canada down to the state of Montana, >there is large geological overshoot where the BOTTOM loayer is dated a >hundred million years, and the TOP layer a billion years. The area is >about 30 000 square kilometres. In article jan@cs.umu.se (Jan T}ngring) writes: >Is this correct? Almost. You refer to the Lewis Thrust, a region where a kilometers-thick slice of Paleozoic sediments lies unconformably atop more recent strata. The geology of the region has been beautifully exposed by glacial action in Glacier National Park, in some of the most magnificent scenery in the US. The Paleozoic strata are tinted in striking pinks, reds, and greens, with white and black intruding dikes and contact metamorphism. >>How did the younger layer get on top of the older? > TMakinen writes: [ explanation by overturning plate segment deleted. nice ASCII graphics, tho :-) ] Well, overturning has occurred in various places around the world, but it doesn't account for the Lewis Thrust. The error in Jan T's statement of the Lewis stratigraphy is in the implication that the ages of the strata look like this, (with ages in Millions of years): --------------- 1000 --------------- 750 -------------- 500 -------------- 250 -------------- 100 -------------- undateable basement which would be upside-down ordering, oldest on top and successively younger layers downward; a situation that could be the result of the overturn diagrammed by Teemu. In fact, the Lewis stratigraphy looks more like this: ---------------- 1000 ---------------- 1050 ---------------- 1100 =============== thrust fault 100 -------------- 200 -------------- 300 -------------- ... many more layers that is, the top layer is around a billion years old, and it is above a 100-million-year-old layer, but the 100My layer is definitely not the "bottom". What in fact we have is a big slab of normally-ordered old sediments laying right-side-up on top of a big slab of normally-ordered newer sediments. The plate-tectonic explanation goes like this: Once upon a time, there was a passive continental margin that collected sediments in deep layers: west Montana east ------------------------------------------------------------- 300 ------------------------------------------------------------- 500 -------------------------------------------------------------- 750 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1000 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1050 ... etc Then subduction started near the continental shelf, and other landmasses began to collide with our continent, riding in from the west on the moving ocean crust. The collision, which occurs offstage to the left in my pictures, produced in its earliest stages some high-angle normal faulting and uplift to the west of present-day Montana, thus: Faulting west Montana east ---------------------------|--------------------------------- 200 | ---------------------------|--------------------------------- 300 / -------------------------/----------------------------------- 500 / -----------------------/-------------------------------------- 750 / ---------------------/---------------------------------------- 1000 / -------------------/----------------------------------------- 1050 ... etc Uplift and Erosion in the west, sedimentation in the east west Montana east ------------------- 300 \ --------------------- 500 \ ------------------------ 750 \ -------------------------/----------------------------------- 1000 / 100 -----------------------/-------------------------------------- 1050 / 200 ---------------------/---------------------------------------- 1100 / 300 -------------------/----------------------------------------- 1200 / 500 ... etc Then, as the tectonic collision to the west intensified, further uplift was coupled with crustal folding, tilting the uplifted block, and accelerating the erosive removal of the more recent sediments from the tops of the high young mountains Further uplift, crustal shortening, block tilts, further erosion west Montana east / / \ / \ \/ \ / \ / \ \ \ \/ \/ \ \ 10 \ 1K \750 \ 500 \ \ 50 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /-------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ / 100 \ \ \ \ /---------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ \ / 200 \ \ \ \ /----------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ / 300 Then, as the impacting plate smashed everything before it, the compressive force of the collision detached an immense block from the eastern face of the uplifted mountains, which slid to the east on the Lewis Thrust fault Overthrust, big block slides to east west Montana east / / \ / \ ----------- \/ \ / \ / \ / 750 \ \ \ \/ \/ \/ ------------------- \ Intensely crushed \ 1000 \ \and folded, too \ ---------------------- / hard to draw well \ 1050 \ \ \ \ \ /---------------------------- \ / \ / \ \ \ / 1100 \ \ \ \ \ /================================== thrust fault / \ / \ \ \ / 100 \ \ \ \ /---------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ \ / 200 \ \ \ \ /----------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ / 300 ... etc Igneous dikes then intrude along faults, and between some of the sedimentary layers. After further erosion removes the top of the whole picture, and glaciers carve big U-shaped valleys in the block that slid; hey presto! Glacier National Park. I was there three years ago - what a wonderful place to look at rock! Deep time is spread out all over the landscape. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * I started out with nothing & still have most of it left. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank