40 times?

For those of you attending "Dr." Mortenson's talk in Morris, MN today - a popular claim is that the canyon carved by the Toutle River after Mt St Helens is 40 times smaller than the Grand Canyon. The Toutle River canyon, being eroded out in a relatively short period of time, provides a seemingly perfect analogy for the 40 (or even 100) days of the "Flood."

But this is wrong on many, many levels. The simplest is one of geometry. The Toutle River canyon is almost one fortieth the length of the grand canyon (close enough to use that number for now). But, it is also nearly one fortieth as wide, and more than one fortieth as deep. Since we should consider dimensions of volume if talking about size, we are looking at a comparison of something less than 1/(40*40*40)^th the size of the grand canyon. So the Grand Canyon is actually 64,000 times larger. That's 175 years worth of material flux. All of this is predicated on the assumption that erosion of the Toutle River canyon is equal to erosion of the Grand Canyon. This assumption is stupid and false. Only a fool would assume the two systems are equally comparable. But that hasn't stopped people I guess...

Physical Constants

If I were to try and revolutionize science, I wouldn't bother with the higher order observations such as stratigraphy, landscape evolution, or even biological evolution. Because these are all tightly-bound, and widely agreeing observations. They all point to an old earth, and changes in organisms over long spans of time. Nor would I try and sow doubt by pointing out minor and insignificant anomalies. By pecking at the surface of science, YECP's are doing little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, it may look different, but the icebergs are still in the water, and the boat is still moving forward.

Instead, if I were to try and disprove all of these observations, I would attack the physical constants. If I could demonstrate that universal "constants" such as gravitation, nuclear strong and weak, even electrostatic forces varied over time, only then would it be possible to cast sufficient doubt over the concept of Unformity, providing an empirical and non-religious basis to support a young-Earth flood model.

If nuclear decay was faster, that means more heat - if we could show heat-flow through rock was reduced, then perhaps all this radioactive decay wouldn't have cooked all of Noah's family and the animals headed to the Ark. Unfortunately, we are faced with the problem of large bodies of intrusive, igneous rocks. To quickly cool (within a thousand years or less), heat dissipation would have had to be higher. Thus not only would we have to demonstrate heat flow was less, we then have to demonstrate how it also (either concurrently, or immediately following this flood) sped up. We could, perhaps, avoid some problems by focusing on the elements in rock forming minerals, such as silicon, iron, and magnesium - this way we can concentrate these variations within the crust. Or, perhaps there is some multiplier attached to these constants that can change - thereby altering the magnitude and direction of these constants.

So what is the value of this "constant" modifier? Well, the only source of information that suggests this is possible comes from some interpretations of biblical Genesis. We don't see consistent (let alone any) and, importantly, independent evidence of this modifier in action. The only record is a religious text (and, depending on which chapter you read, a widely varying one). Thus, it fails the basic requirement of science.

But, if YECP's could effectively demonstrate that physical constants could change - then things would at least become more interesting. Instead, nearly 60 years after Morris' "Flood Geology" book, we are still faced with the same inane arguments about the same rocks, the same claims, and the same lack of basic science (albeit dressed up with fancy new words and some vaguely scientific techniques).

Footprints in the Sand

Fossil footprints are among the most interesting traces of ancient life. They can tell us about how an animal walked and, based on the distance between the footprints, we can estimate how quickly the animal may have been running. To be formed, the ground has to be soft enough for the animal to deform the soil, but not so soft as to collapse after the animal's foot is removed. To be preserved, the footprints need to be covered relatively quickly, or erosion can quickly remove them.

One interesting argument made by the YECFP's is that these footprints could have been made underwater. By studying a salamander in a tank, on a sandy substrate, they made dozens of measurements of footprints, looking at how the tracks formed. It was interesting enough from an empirical standpoint that it was published in Geology (Brand and Tang, 1991). The basic findings were indeed intriguing. Some footprints may form subaqueously (underwater). But Brand made a big leap - he compared the lab experiments to the Coconino, and suggested the tetrapod footprints in the Coconino were also made subaqueously. This was thoroughly refuted by comments by Lockley and others (Geology, 1992). But this hasn't stopped the YECFPs from insisting the Coconino was subaqueous (therefore NOT eolian at all...). Unfortunately, their arguments about footprints do not "stand up" very well, when actually LOOKING at the Coconino footprints.

Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone are generally viewed as being formed on moist sand in an eolian environment. Here's an example from Wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Coconino_Sandstone_with_footprints.jpg)



The footprints are all lined up with the toes pointing to the right. Note that the entire footprint is well-preserved, front to back. You can see little "chips" of the sandy surface pushed backwards behind the animal's heel as the animal propelled itself forward. Also, note the low relief "ripples" running left to right in the image. These sedimentary structures are the result of fluid transport of a granular medium (in this case, wind ripples in sand). They can form underwater too. But they form perpendicular to the direction of fluid flow. Thus, the wind was blowing top to bottom (or bottom to top) in relationship to the animal's movement.

What does a footprint, formed underwater, with a flowing current look like?

My feet are being covered by the gentle waves on a beach - the sand along this spot on Lake Superior is not unlike the sand that makes up some of the Coconino (in terms of grain size and mineralogy). Note how the water is more turbulent around my footprints. As the waves recede, they leave behind tell-tale signs of the turbulent water:


Unfortunately, I didn't get a picture of my footprints in this example, but the scours left by the pebbles demonstrate the structures you would find if flowing water were present when an animal places its foot on the sandy bottom: prominent scours form as a result of the turbulence and redirected current. You can try this yourself on any sandy beach - what do your footprints look like? If you're out walking your dog, or other pet basal tetrapod, look at their footprints on dry land compared to those made underwater. The water has a tangible effect. Especially if made in sand, not clay-rich mud.

Compare that to the footprints in the Coconino at the top: no scours, no evidence of water being redirected around the animals feet. Even a very gentle current (the waves were moving no faster than a person could walk) should affect the substrate. But we se NO evidence of this in the Coconino Sandstone. While this little analogy doesn't completely falsify the subaqueous footprint argument, it does point to some serious flaws and demonstrate a more rigorous analysis of the Coconino footprints is required before any underwater formation can be seriously postulated.