Dr. Nichols.

What is this?  Are you trying to tell us that Lookout Mountain
strata are composed of volcanic rocks?  Please do not.

HG

>Dr. Churnet,
>
>This email got buried a few days ago, but I wanted to make an
>observation or two.
>
>First, you are assuming that because it takes 1000 years to
>accumulate 1 centimeter of sedimentary material today, that it has
>always and only ever will taken 1000 years to accumulate 1
>centimeter of sedimentary material.  However, it was observed that
>the eruption and subsequent mud flow at Mt. St. Helens in 1980 laid
>down 25 feet (762 cm) of sediment in thousands of fine layers--in
>less than 24 hours.  According to the accumulation rate that you
>cited, if it had not been observed, those sedimentary layers would
>appear to have taken 762,000 years to form.  And the eruption of Mt.
>St. Helens wasn't even a particularly large volcanic eruption.
>
>This is what I am trying to point out about assumptions.  With
>regards to Lookout Mountain, if you assume 1 cm per 1000 years, you
>come up with 30 million years.  If you assume 762 cm per day (which
>I'm not, but it is the number I have on hand) then you come up with
>40 days.
>
>Plus, a simple math exercise can quickly show that extrapolating
>data outside its range only works for linear functions.  In short,
>if the rate of sedimentation is roughly linear AND roughly constant,
>then the extrapolation will be fairly accurate for long spans of
>time.  However, if these rates are not linear and are not constant,
>then the resulting extrapolation will not be very accurate.  It
>could drastically over or under predict the age of the rock
>formation in question.
>
>Regarding the method of the stratification of sediments, an
>interesting article titled "Experiments on stratification of
>heterogeneous sand mixtures" was originally published in the
>Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, vol. 164(5), 1993, pp.
>649-650.  One of the authors has made available images and video of
>the experiments at
>http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/fusion/stratification.htm  The text
>of the article is available in English at
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/sand.asp.  I offer it as a
>possible alternative mechanism for the stratification seen in the 25
>feet of sediment deposited at Mt. St. Helens or the 300 meters at
>Lookout Mountain.  The following is taken from the abstract of that
>article:
>
>"Superposed strata in sedimentary rocks are believed to have been
>formed by successive layers of sediments deposited periodically with
>interruptions of sedimentation. This experimental study examines
>possible stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures under
>continuous (non-periodic and non-interrupted) sedimentation. The
>three primary aspects of stratification are considered: lamination,
>graded-beds, and joints.... Rather than successive sedimentary
>layers, these experiments demonstrate that stratification under a
>continuous supply of heterogeneous sand particles results from:
>segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and
>desiccation for joints. Superposed strata are not necessarily
>identical to successive layers."
>
>On a different note, how long does it take to lithify sediments?  A
>set of c. 1960 car keys was found off the Pacific Coast of the US
>sometime before December 1994 (when the report I am looking at  was
>published).  If the keys were lost to the Pacific Ocean on January
>1, 1960 then it took 34 years for the sediment to accumulate around
>the keys and lithify into solid sandstone.  Then there is the roll
>of fencing wire that was discarded into the sea off Western
>Australia sometime between 1920 and 1970 (those dates are assumed
>because that type of fencing wire was used in that area during that
>time period) that was discovered encased in "hard, dense, calcareous
>sandstone" complete with shells and shellgrit.  The article was
>written in 1998, so it took between 78 and 28 years for the sediment
>to accumulate and lithify.  Another situation is the swimming pool
>sand filter in Ohio that in the five years since it was installed
>had turned to solid sandstone.  Under the right circumstances (lots
>of water, sediment and dissolved minerals) it has been observed that
>rock can form very rapidly.
>
>Of course, if you automatically reject the possibility of
>circumstances that we do not normally observe, then you necessarily
>look to alternative methods of sediment accumulation,
>stratification, and lithification.
>
>That the data (in this case 300 meters of stratified rock) exists is
>not in question.  What is in question is the interpretation of the
>data and the logic behind that interpretation.  In most cases, it
>boils down to your assumptions and how you choose to see the data
>placed before you.
>
>As stimulating as this debate has been, I have research grants that
>require my attention, and I am sure that you are equally busy.
>Respectfully,
>Stephen
>
>>
>>Habte Giorgis wrote:
>>
>>>It is now clear that Dr. Nichols has doubts about radiometric dating.
>>>Is he suggesting that we shouldn't use radiometric dating because he
>>>has his doubts? Are we going to stop using methodologies because some
>>>one has doubts?
>>>
>>>Those that use radiometric age dating are a skeptic bunch of
>>>scientists and arrive at the best possible estimates of time under a
>>>given set of circumstances.  Scientists are healthy skeptics, who try
>>>to develop better methodologies, equipment, and possible answers.
>>>
>>>Consider the layers of rocks stacked at Lookout Mountain between the
>>>level of the Tennessee river and Point Park. What is the total
>>>thickness of the layers in question? How much time did it take to
>>>accumulate the stack of rocks ?  What is the best approach to arrive
>>>at the answer?  Do we take folks that doubt methodologies and arrive
>>>at anything that is knowable?  Or do we take trained individuals to
>>>perform the best estimate man has devised thus far?  If it takes
>>>about 1000 years to accumulate 1 centimeter of sedimentary layer, and
>>>the stack of layers were 300 meters (30,000 cm), one obtains
>>>30,000,000 years  - 30, million years. There is a major problem in
>>>this estimate. Some rock layers had been eroded away before others
>>>were deposited on top of them.  This would indicate that 30 million
>>>years is the least amount of time that is  represented by the stack
>>>of layer.  Though no radiometric age dating is involved here, there
>>>may be several people who may doubt such estimates. We shall register
>>>their doubts, and use the ideas if such would help us advance
>>>knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the stack of layers mentioned above some critters had died and
>>>have become fossilized.  How long does it take to fossilize a
>>>critter?  Also we are not talking about loose sediments.  They have
>>>been compacted and cemented into rocks.  How long does it take to
>>>lithify sediments?  It would appear that the 30 million year estimate
>>>is an underestimation on this score too.
>>>
>>>A three meters thick layer in the Lookout Mountain stack of rocks, it
>>>appears might have required  more than 300,000 years for its
>>>development.  That amount of time is more than the time  Homo sapiens
>>>walked in Africa and migrated to fill the earth. This issue is no
>>>doubt going to be controversial? How do we resolve the controversy?
>>>Shall we say that we are talking about origins here, which some argue
>>>is unknowable. How do we define origins any way? Should we worry
>>>about the origins of critters that are fossilized in Lookout Mountain
>>>rocks?  Or should we preferentially worry about those that are part
>>>of the Cenozoic rock record of the East African Rift system? Even
>>>within the the Africa record should the origins begin when bipedal
>>>apes evolved to Homo sapiens, or when quadrupeds evolved to bipedal
>>>apes?  How do we define origins? Should we ask paranormal
>>>psychologists to cause universal consciousness induce behaviors in us
>>>that will expose the true answers to the problem at hand? Should we
>>>reflect on responses that have been examined by church fathers as
>>>ways of ameliorating the oddities that arise from unnecessary
>>>inference that the human spirit is an epiphenomena of the physical
>>>evolution from hominid bipeds to Homo sapiens.  Only God knows if I
>>>understand the meaning of last sentence that I just wrote. It is a
>>>property probably quite clear in other disciplines of human endeavor.
>>>However, I will quote this, "Pope .... Pius XII stressed this
>>>essential point: If the human body takes its origin from preexisting
>>>living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (Pope
>>>Paul II, 1996). "
>>>
>>>Do people doubt any of this?  But what has doubt in the field of work
>>>of other disciplines go to do with the advancement of human
>>>knowledge?  We have memorized phrases like, "I think, therefore I am".
>>>" I doubt, therefore I know", somehow does not seem right.  Instead
>>>of assembling a series of doubts, what might be preferable is to
>>>propose methodologies that might advance human knowledge, and see if
>>>others are willing to use those methodologies.  People have a
>>>tendency to follow that which works best for them. I see no conflict
>>>between science and faith. One deals with the physical and the other
>>>with spiritual. I have never heard any student of the hard sciences
>>>attempting to comprehend the spirit.  It is simply outside the
>>>methodology of the physical and natural scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>>HG