Ken Van Dellen

Thanks. Wouldn't you expect a good response from me?

"This number is possible, based on some present day data, but that does not mean that it actually happened that way. But even if it took twice as long or four times as long, then the reefs could have formed in 1200 years."

As they say in the computer industry, garbage in garbage out. I question the source of your "present day data". Regardless, other evidence mitigates against anything that rapid in the Silurian, one of which is the rate of subsidence. Believe what you will, but one needs to consider the whole situation, and not just plug in a number that gives results that we like.

"I try to put quotation marks around quotes – I believe I did that there"

If you had, I would have had no difficulty distinguishing the quotation from your comments. Sorry!

"The article indicated some significant changes to the plate tectonics model would be required. But my point was only that the amount of time for something to happen in geological history still appears to be relatively fluid."

Not at all. We can predict what will happen, given a set of conditions. If one or more conditions is unknown, then we get unexpected results, which can happen in complex situations, but most situations aren't very complex. In this case, look at the time intervals you quote.

"Garzione, a professor of geology at the University of Rochester, and her colleagues examined the sediment record and found that the Andes had slowly grown for tens of millions of years before suddenly spiking between 10 and 6 million years ago -- a process they call 'delamination'...."

This research suggests that, rather than growing at a fairly constant rate over millions of years, the Andes grew at a more rapid rate for several million years. So? If this research is correct, conditions changed making the rate of growth change. That's like saying if we have heavy rain the creek will flood. What is more likely to occur, the "normal" situation or the anomalous situation?

One of my professors at the University of Michigan was a fine Christian (Presbyterian) man who was involved with InterVarsity. He once told me or a group of students that he believed that science developed to the extent it did in the western world because Christians believe in a God of order. He does what He says, and we can count on it. This man said, and this is slightly political incorrect, that people in other parts of the world in those days "were running around nailing things to trees". This was in reference to polytheistic ideas of weather gods, tree gods, rock gods, etc. God wants us to understand His creation, and has directed us to do so. Note that the Bible remarks about Solomon and others studying the plants and animals, and talks about constellations. Some Christians are fearful of what they might discover if they explore the creation. How sad!

"your reasoning could go both ways based on what you are saying here. In other words, in this location, the granites and metamorphic rocks remained in place, rather than being uplifted into mountains. The Canadian Shield is full of this type of rock as well, which is near the surface. The literature indicates a belief that this used to be many large mountains at one time. The reasoning is that rocks found under mountains are similar. Other evidence is lacking, apparently, since as mountains erode, the roots of mountains rise up. So in this case of the Shield, any mountain roots would be much smaller than they were originally, but then how would we know really? The article I saw also indicated that there used to be hundreds of volcanic belts in this area, each one with several hundreds of volcanos and numerous vents."

My friend, this is not reasoning, it is fact. I am telling you what we find when we go out and look with our eyes open. We find that in mountainous areas, there is granite (igneous rock) and metamorphic rock under sedimentary rock (if any still remains). Coarse-grained igneous rock can form only deep underground where magma will cool very slowly. It takes a long time for a large magma chamber to crystallize, and in mountain belts we find that this has happened repeatedly - intrusion, cooling and crystallization to form a batholith (large granite body), and repeat, and repeat. Around and above the batholiths is metamorphic rock, which forms under high pressure  and at high temperature, such as we find deep underground. It is possible to determine the depth, pressure, and temperature at which various minerals found in these rocks would develop. This is the kind of rock that the Canadian Shield is composed of. The conclusion is that mountains once existed there, and have been eroded down to their foundations (what I called roots, and made you misunderstand). That took a while, don't you think? When that tremendous weight was removed, the region uplifted broadly. That would initiate another cycle of erosion, and more, until equilibrium was established. No, my reasoning doesn't go both ways.

Let me suggest that you check out http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html for some background on mountain building. Focus on convergent plate boundaries. The theory of plate tectonics was formulated in the early nineteen-sixties, and there are still questions. There always are. The more we learn, the more questions we have. However, it answers many questions about topographic features, seismicity, volcanism, biogeography, paleomagnetism, stratigraphy, and, more recently, what our GPS units indicate about relative motion of continents.

"Yes, probably, some material is recycled from other writers. But the evolutionary theory proponents do this all the time. Continually. Many evolutionary geologists do nothing else than recycle the thoughts of others. And many of those thoughts are already recycled."

John, is that a Christian thing to say? It's good to be inclusive, but this is an unfair generalization. Besides, Christian writers shouldn't model their behavior on the despicable behavior of atheistic evolutionists, should they? (Sarcasm!) Some Christian writers repeat arguments that others have made, often using examples that have been previously discredited (such as the Paluxey man tracks), and including quotes from scientific articles that have been taken, not from the original source, but from other anti-science books or books of mined quotes. (Look up "quote mining" to learn about books by Henry Morris, for example, that misrepresent what scientists have written, and turn unbeliever more strongly against Christianity.) I think this is different than a professional paper citing the research that others have done and the evidence they have obtained with respect to, say, the rocks and fossils of a particular locality. Even a Bible commentary cites other research.

"...the judgement about 'worse science' is often based on whether it fits with the prevailing paradigm or not."

No, what I meant in referring to the quality of the science in some such books, is that the authors simply do not know the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently, and often are not current with their information.

"...the experts should be able to use radiometric dating objectively. But it is not as simply as a chemical test for chlorine, or for acidity, or for aluminum or arsenic in water. Radiometric dating requires a tremendous number of assumptions... What cannot be done objectively is the assumption of what that proportion should have been originally, which is what the whole radiometric dating process relies on."

If you want to dispute something, you really need to be well acquainted with it. Have you read the article I gave you a link to above? "..tremendous number of assumptions"? Do you know that there are ways to check dates? Of course, radiogenic isotopes are, by definition, the result of radioactive decay, so it is reasonable to assume, yes, that the radiogenic atoms in a sample began to accumulate when the mineral they are in crystallized.

I'm spending way too much time on this, and I need to use my time more productively. I don't mind answering an occasional question, but I don't have time for long debates via keyboard, especially when we're bouncing from topic to topic. We can play "What about this?" and "What about that?" for the rest of our lives. I'm trying to write a book on Michigan geology, and I'd like to finish it while I still have my wits about me.

Nice talking with you, John. I'm not sure that anyone else is interested in such long "comments".

"That was quick, Ken. (for someone who thinks everything must happen slowly...) :o) "

That's cute, but you haven't been paying attention. I don't think everything must happen slowly, but there is no avoiding that some things have. You didn't like some examples I gave you, so I'll try a few more.

The opening of the Atlantic Ocean. Most would consider present rates of plate motion, based on GPS, to be a reasonable basis for calculating the time it took. It's interesting that the radiometric dates for ocean crust rock match nicely with the rates of today. They also match with the Palisades sill and other igneous rock in rift basins from Massachusetts to Virginia. Of course, one could say that we don't know Pangea ever existed.

The Hawaiian islands. Radiometric dates of volcanic rocks match well with the rate of plate motion there, and support the theory that there is a mantle plume under Hawaii (island) Pacific Plate that has produced volcanoes on Kauai to Hawaii, and earlier on island that are now reefs to the northwest of Kauai. The stages of erosion of the islands indicate that their age increases northward, from 0 to 60+ millionyears.

India. Paleomagnetic measurements of the rocks of India indicate that it has moved northward across a wide range of latitudes. The radiometric dates correspond well with current plate motion rates.

"How would you measure or determine the rate of subsidence in the past?"

It would be rather difficult without the use of radiometric dating which you don't accept (even though other data, such as the plate motion examples above, indicate that it is reliable). However, we could consider rock mechanics and present rates of rock deformation. The thickness of rock that accumulated in the Michigan Basin during the part of the Paleozoic in which the Basin was actively subsiding, would require an astonishing rate of subsidence to occur in the length of time that you will allow, causing a huge release of energy.

"My response is that both the unflooded and the flooded situations are normal."

Some of your responses make me empathize with Alice after she fell down the rabbit hole. If I told you that throwing a match into a puddle of gasoline on the ground under our atmosphere will always cause an explosion, you would say that maybe things weren't always the way they are now. Thank God for not changing the laws of nature that He established while humans have been taking notes, anyway!

"What is fact is that metamorphic rock is there. What is reasoning is that metamorphic rock is caused by high pressure and heat and therefore must have occurred deep underground at a slow pace. However, lack of evidence is not proof. Lack of sedimentary rock, lack of surface silt and clay, or lack of mountain foundations is not proof that it once was there."

This is another example of the strange world in which you live. Laboratory experiments have been done on metamorphic processes. We know what temperatures and pressures are required to produce various minerals, and therefore at what depth they formed, which in turn determines the thousands of feet of rock that would have to be eroded away to expose them. I don't really care how fast mountains erode away. I have no reason to want it to be slow, but that's the way it is. Rushing streams and powerful glaciers move down mountains and erode the rock, but it still takes a long time. As I mentioned, the removal of a load of rock leads to isostatic uplift, although not to the original elevation - think of removing most of the part of log floating above water, and how much it would rise as a result, followed by more erosion. How much time will you allow for the Andes or the Himalaya to erode down to a plain?

Lack of sedimentary rock? Sometimes we do find sedimentary rock on mountains, and formation of metamorphic rocks and huge igneous rock bodies does not occur at the surface, so what would you propose was on top of a region where such rocks are found today, if not sedimentary rock?

Lack of mountain foundations? Metamorphic rocks on a regional scale and large igneous bodies (batholiths) are mountain foundations, and they prove that mountains were once there - unless you want to say that they were created and didn't form.

It's simple forensic science. If the victim is found with a hole in his head, gunpowder residue around the hole, and a bullet is in his brain, we conclude that he was shot, even if there is no gun present. If there is residue on his hand, and the gun is in his hand, we may even conclude that he shot himself, although a killer could have held the victim's hand on the gun when the killer pulled the trigger.

I once went to a gravel pit with a young-Earth friend who wanted to discuss gravel with me. We saw some grooves on a vertical face, and he suggested that a raccoon had tried to climb up, although no raccoon was present. How could he know?

"But you would still need to know the original ratio at that place and time."

And we do. We know that there is no radiogenic daughter product in a mineral or rock at the time it forms from magma, and when one half-lfe has elapsed, the ratio will be 1:1.

All questions in this response are rhetorical. I have to move on. If you would like to ask a specific question, use the link at www.wheaton.edu/acg.