Devils Tower: Water or Magic?
and...@my-deja.com
other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
sides. Details are at
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
er.html
Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
mile deep in water. Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
unique columns formed from a cooling process. Water best explains the
cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater
in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
still runs nearby.
Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Elmer Bataitis
> Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
> sides. Details are at
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html
> Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
> mile deep in water.
What? Doesn't it rain in Wyoming?
and...@my-deja.com
It doesn't rain much in Wyoming.
At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
well.
Boikat
>
> Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
> sides. Details are at
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html
>
> Easy to describe, impossible to explain
"impossible" for a moron to understand, you mean.
"-- unless the area was once a
> mile deep in water.
Wrong. Where did you pull that one out of (as if
anyone needed to guess)?
> Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
> unique columns formed from a cooling process.
Yes.
> Water best explains the
> cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater
> in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above).
How does that better explain it? Just because you
pulled that explanation out of your arse? Because
it's different than the accepted theory? Sorry,
you have to present something better than that.
> A river
> still runs nearby.
>
Big deal. There are a lot of places with "a river
near by".
> Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods.
No, You utter a falsehood again. Local flooding
even on an enormous scale is not impossible
(Channeled Scab lands...), however, Geologist have
found no evidence to support *THE* Global Flood of
Genesis.
> Do they
> oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
Yes idiot, because for the columns to form in
basalt, the basalt has to cool *slowly* and
*uniformly*. Water would not have allowed this to
happen. Also, if you'd bother to look in a
geology book, you would find that lava that is
extruded under water forms distinctive shapes
called "Pillow Lava". Look up some pictures of
the lava formations located in the mid Atlantic
rift zone. let us know if you see columnar basalt
formations.
Boikat
Boikat
>
By the way, you still need to work on that reading
comprehension problem.
> Devils Tower is a mile-high,
No, idiot. From the article cited:
"Devils Tower rises 1,253 feet (382 m) above the
nearby Belle Fouche River."
How many feet in a mile andy?
> pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> other mountains nearby.
That is interesting. You don't know very much
about the area, do you?
> It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
> sides. Details are at
Details you apparently are completely unaware of.
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html
>
[Pseudo-scientific jerking-ff snipped]
Boikat
Nell P. Wright
>Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
>other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
>sides. Details are at
>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
>er.html
>
>Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
>mile deep in water.
Oh? And exactly how does this explain it?
> Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
>unique columns formed from a cooling process.
Unlikely. There is no evidence of volcanic activity anywhere in the
area. No volcanic ash, no lava flows, no debris...nada.
> Water best explains the
>cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater
>in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
>still runs nearby.
According to everything I've read about it, the Tower was formed by an
igneous intrusion into sedimentary rock, and the molten rock which
formed it did not even surface. Geologists may not agree on exactly
how it formed, but they do agree on that much.
Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the softer
sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is now
visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself is
eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
>
>Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
>instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
>oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
Yup, cause the evidence doesn't bear it out.
Nell P. Wright
Boikat
>
> In article <3A53E162...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> > > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> all
> > > sides. Details are at
> > >
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > > er.html
> >
> > > Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once
> a
> > > mile deep in water.
> >
> > What? Doesn't it rain in Wyoming?
>
> It doesn't rain much in Wyoming.
But it still rains. Imagine that.
>
> At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
You might want to do that. But first, why don't
you open a geology book?
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall.
The erosion pattern is due to the fracture
pattern, not "currents".
> The
> rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> well.
The columns were not form due to rapid cooling.
Rapid cooling due to "flood water" would have
caused the uniform fractures. As far as lava
extruded under water, look up "pillow lava".
Boikat
marcof...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
> rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> well.
Okay, since you're the expert neo-Neptunist here, explain it already.
jmonrad
Nell P. Wright
Rapid cooling? Where did you get *that*? It cooled very slowly,
otherwise those columns wouldn't have formed like that.
Nell P. Wright
and...@my-deja.com
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
all
> > sides. Details are at
> >
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > er.html
> >
> > Easy to describe, impossible to explain
>
> "impossible" for a moron to understand, you mean.
Classic Darwinian namecalling there -- as recognizable as a heavy
accent.
[snip]
> > Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
> > unique columns formed from a cooling process.
>
> Yes.
So far so good ... until someone mentions "flood" ...
> > Water best explains the
> > cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be
greater
> > in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above).
>
> How does that better explain it? Just because you
> pulled that explanation out of your arse? Because
> it's different than the accepted theory? Sorry,
> you have to present something better than that.
There's that trademark evolutionist opposition to any large flood!!!
Multiple small floods are OK, but not a large flood!
> > A river
> > still runs nearby.
> >
>
> Big deal. There are a lot of places with "a river
> near by".
And how many Devils Tower formations in nature??? One.
> > Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> > instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods.
>
> No, You utter a falsehood again. Local flooding
> even on an enormous scale is not impossible
> (Channeled Scab lands...), however, Geologist have
> found no evidence to support *THE* Global Flood of
> Genesis.
Ah, the compound negative that is so frequently used by Darwinists.
Remember Gould's insistence that this theory is *not non-Darwinian*?
Here we have the claim that an enormous flood is "not impossible"!
Saying that without the negatives is too risky, eh?
> > Do they
> > oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>
> Yes idiot, because for the columns to form in
> basalt, the basalt has to cool *slowly* and
> *uniformly*. Water would not have allowed this to
> happen. Also, if you'd bother to look in a
> geology book, you would find that lava that is
> extruded under water forms distinctive shapes
> called "Pillow Lava". Look up some pictures of
> the lava formations located in the mid Atlantic
> rift zone. let us know if you see columnar basalt
> formations.
It's not lava. In fact, the cite I provided expressly stated that it
was only "possibly[] an erosional remnant of a volcanic neck."
Apparently you have no explanation for the erosion pattern so visible
on Devils Tower. Chalk that up to pure chance and "eons of time"???
rich hammett
> In article <3A53E162...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
>> > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> all
>> > sides. Details are at
>> >
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
>> > er.html
>>
>> > Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once
> a
>> > mile deep in water.
>>
>> What? Doesn't it rain in Wyoming?
> It doesn't rain much in Wyoming.
> At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall.
"plainly"? Are you arguing by assertion, again? Could you explain the
technical differences between rapid, diluvial erosion, and slow erosion
caused by precipitation?
rich
> The
> rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> well.
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
scot...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
> oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>
You'll have to add the Catholic Church to your "them" list, Andy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE
The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood.
But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only
anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered
the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a
certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was
generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal,
and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative
scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of
theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so
much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely
abandoned.
Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor
again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the
opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.
(a) The words of the original text, rendered "earth" in our version,
signify "land" as well as "earth"; in fact, "land" appears to have been
their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen.,
iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix,
or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters "filled all on the face of
the land", "all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land", "all
things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died", "all the
high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were
covered"? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a
universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which
Noe lived, but not the whole earth.
(b) As to the cogency of the proof from tradition for the geographical
universality of the Flood, it must be remembered that very few of the
Fathers touched upon this question ex professo. Among those who do so
there are some who restrict the Deluge to certain parts of the earth's
surface without incurring the blame of offending against tradition.
The earthly paradise, e.g., was exempted by many, irrespective of its
location on the top of a high mountain or elsewhere;
the same must be said of the place in which Mathusala must have lived
during the Flood according to the Septuagint reading;
St. Augustine knows of writers who exempted the mountain Olympus from
the Flood, though he himself does not agree with them;
Pseudo-Justin hesitatingly rejects the opinion of those who restrict
the Flood to the parts of the earth actually inhabited by men;
Cajetan revived the opinion that the Flood did not cover Olympus and
other high mountains, believing that Genesis spoke only of the
mountains under the aerial heaven;
Tostatus sees a figure of speech in the expression of the Bible which
implies the universality of the Flood; at any rate, he exempts the
earthly Paradise from the Deluge, since Henoch had to be saved.
If the Fathers had considered the universality of the Flood as part of
the body of ecclesiastical tradition, or of the deposit of faith, they
would have defended it more vigorously. It is true that the
Congregation of the Index condemned Vossius's treatise "De Septuaginta
Interpretibus" in which he defended, among other doctrines, the view
that the Flood covered only the inhabited part of the earth; but
theologians of great weight maintained that the work was condemned on
account of its Protestant author, and not on account of its doctrine.
(c) There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the
view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science
opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws
attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous
phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal
Deluge.
First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have been
left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with the
beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be
connected with the Biblical.
Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as
described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished
in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round numbers,
amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the
highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the
Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000
cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days' rain, ten times more copious than
the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea
only about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000
metres, there is still a gap to be filled by unknown sources amounting
to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water to
the level of the greatest mountains.
Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea
water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that neither the
marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have lived in the
mixture without a miracle.
Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the animals in
the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How were they
brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which they
lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts?
Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could
the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year
and under the same roof?
No Catholic commentator will repudiate an explanation merely for fear
of having to admit a miracle; but no Catholic has a right to admit
Biblical miracles which are not well attested either by Scripture or
tradition. What is more, there are traces in the Biblical Flood story
which favour a limited extent of the catastrophe: Noe could have known
the geographical universality of the Deluge only by revelation; still
the Biblical account appears to have been written by an eye-witness. If
the Flood had been universal, the water would have had to fall from the
height of the mountains in India to the level of those in Armenia on
which the ark rested, i.e. about 11,500 feet, within the space of a few
days. The fact that the dove is said to have found "the waters . . .
upon the whole earth", and that Noe "saw that the face of the earth was
dried", leaves the impression that the inspired writer uses the
word "earth" in the restricted sense of "land". Attention has been
drawn also to the "bough of an olive tree, with green leaves" carried
by the dove in her mouth on her second return to the ark.
Scott
ghos...@my-deja.com
"Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
>
>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_to
w
> >er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
> >rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> >well.
>
> Rapid cooling? Where did you get *that*? It cooled very slowly,
> otherwise those columns wouldn't have formed like that.
>
> Nell P. Wright
Don't confuse us with facts dear Nell. Let's rather focus on the wishful
thinking present in Andy's "argument".
and...@my-deja.com
>
> >Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> >other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
all
> >sides. Details are at
>
>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_to
w
> >er.html
> >
> >Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
> >mile deep in water.
>
> Oh? And exactly how does this explain it?
The erosion matches the effect of water currents as though the rock
were submerged.
> > Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
> >unique columns formed from a cooling process.
>
> Unlikely. There is no evidence of volcanic activity anywhere in the
> area. No volcanic ash, no lava flows, no debris...nada.
So you disagree with Boikat about this.
Water resolves your objection, however -- the ash, lava flows, debris,
etc., would have simply been washed away in a flood.
> > Water best explains the
> >cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be
greater
> >in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
> >still runs nearby.
>
> According to everything I've read about it, the Tower was formed by an
> igneous intrusion into sedimentary rock, and the molten rock which
> formed it did not even surface. Geologists may not agree on exactly
> how it formed, but they do agree on that much.
That looks like little more than "magic" as an explanation. In fact,
most geologists agree with Boikat that this was part of a volcano.
> Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the softer
> sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is now
> visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself is
> eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
"Don't need no stinking flood to explain it." That's a classic!
Archie Bunker could not have put it better.
It's the pattern of erosion that strongly suggests water currents
around the rock. Rain, snow, sun, some random wind doesn't cause that
erosion pattern in the rock.
> >Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> >instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
> >oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>
> Yup, cause the evidence doesn't bear it out.
Anything but a "stinking flood" that *them* might agree with???
Alan Barclay
>In article <3A53E9C5...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Big deal. There are a lot of places with "a river
>> near by".
>
>And how many Devils Tower formations in nature??? One.
Eroded volcanic plugs aren't terribly rare, so the answer is several
actually. Another famous example is Edinburgh Castle Rock in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The erosion in this case was glacial, so there are only three
sides exposed, with the fourth side a gentle ramp down to the base level.
This is easy to explain using conventional geology, the ice eroded away
the material in the direction it was travelling, and deposited it after
the Rock, but it's impossible to explain by a flood.
and...@my-deja.com
marcof...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <930ote$al1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
> > rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> > well.
>
> Okay, since you're the expert neo-Neptunist here, explain it already.
A massive flood likely carried away all the volcanic remnants and
eroded the rock. From the picture at the site above, you can even see
the direction in which the water primarily flowed.
No other explanation is even remotely plausible. Feel free to look
through the other postings here yourself. Their only significance is
that many evolutionists oppose the possibility of an enormous flood at
all costs, simply because their adversaries support one.
Andy
ghos...@my-deja.com
> > > cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be
> greater
> > > in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above).
> > How does that better explain it? Just because you
> > pulled that explanation out of your arse? Because
> > it's different than the accepted theory? Sorry,
> > you have to present something better than that.
>
> There's that trademark evolutionist opposition to any large flood!!!
> Multiple small floods are OK, but not a large flood!
You failed to address why it better explains it. Your non sequitur
response is duely noted.
Large floods are also ok, the Washington Scablands make for a great
example. There is plenty of supporting evidence of such a flood. There
is however no evidence of a global flood, worse, many data show the
opposite.
> > > A river
> > > still runs nearby.
> > >
> >
> > Big deal. There are a lot of places with "a river
> > near by".
>
> And how many Devils Tower formations in nature??? One.
Really? Btw it was not water but a glacier that caused the erosion. But
you still have not addressed why water explains it better.
> > > Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> > > instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods.
> >
> > No, You utter a falsehood again. Local flooding
> > even on an enormous scale is not impossible
> > (Channeled Scab lands...), however, Geologist have
> > found no evidence to support *THE* Global Flood of
> > Genesis.
> Ah, the compound negative that is so frequently used by Darwinists.
Geologists have found no evidence to support a global flood of the
extent of Genesis. What's wrong with that statement?
> Remember Gould's insistence that this theory is *not non-Darwinian*?
Non sequitur.
> Here we have the claim that an enormous flood is "not impossible"!
> Saying that without the negatives is too risky, eh?
An enormous flood is indeed not impossible, a flood the extent of the
Genesis flood however is 1) very unlikely 2) not supported by geological
evidence 3) contradicted by geological evidence.
> > > Do they
> > > oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
> >
> > Yes idiot, because for the columns to form in
> > basalt, the basalt has to cool *slowly* and
> > *uniformly*. Water would not have allowed this to
> > happen. Also, if you'd bother to look in a
> > geology book, you would find that lava that is
> > extruded under water forms distinctive shapes
> > called "Pillow Lava". Look up some pictures of
> > the lava formations located in the mid Atlantic
> > rift zone. let us know if you see columnar basalt
> > formations.
>
> It's not lava. In fact, the cite I provided expressly stated that it
> was only "possibly[] an erosional remnant of a volcanic neck."
So it is not lava? What is it then? So how did this form if it was not
lava? The columns surely require a uniform cooling. Under water it would
have formed pillows.
> Apparently you have no explanation for the erosion pattern so visible
> on Devils Tower. Chalk that up to pure chance and "eons of time"???
There are a few problems with your assertion
1) It is up to you to explain the erosion pattern on the devils tower.
Your claim that it is best explained by a flood is hardly evidence.
2) Explanations (better than yours) exist to explain the Tower and the
erosion patterns found.
I suggest that you spend some time on formulating a mechanism that is
not easily contradicted by the available evidence. And when you are
done, you might show why your explanation is better than other
explanations.
Good luck
catshark
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> > > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> all
> > > sides. Details are at
> > >
>
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > > er.html
> >
> > > Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was
once
> a
> > > mile deep in water.
> >
> > What? Doesn't it rain in Wyoming?
>
> It doesn't rain much in Wyoming.
>
If you bothered to read the accompanying text, you would have seen that
it is dated at 40,000,000 years old. Even a little yearly rain over
40M years is a *lot* of water. (Forget climate changes!) Oh, but I
forgot, all scientists are in on this vast conspiracy, so no doubt that
dating is off by many magnitudes!
> At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
>
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
> rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> well.
>
Since you are so big on "authorities" (remember poor old Dr. Smith?),
you will let us in on your expertise in erotion morphology, won't you?
Or at least on how you came to the conclusion that currents caused what
is seen in the photos.
> Andy
>
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
ghos...@my-deja.com
> on Devils Tower. Chalk that up to pure chance and "eons of time"???
Now back to science:
http://www.nps.gov/deto/first50.htm
There have been several theories explaining the Devil's Tower. The most
recent one, based on the available data suggests that 60 million years
ago (sounds pre-flood to me :-)) masses of "lava-like" material welled
up and formed the Devils Tower.
"Over the years there have been changing theories concerning the origin
of Devils Tower. The latest belief, based upon the most extensive
geological field work yet done, probably will be supported by further
study.
Briefly stated, about 60 million years ago when the Rocky Mountains
were formed, there was similar upheaval which produced the Black Hills
and associated mountains. Great masses of very hot, plastic material
from within welled up into the earth's crust. In some instances it
reached the surface to produce lava flows or spectacular explosive
volcanoes which spread layers of ash many feet thick over a vast part of
the Great Plains.
In the Devils Tower vicinity, this slowly upsurging, heated earth
substance spent its force before reaching the surface, cooling and
becoming solid within the upper layers of the earth. During this process
probably a very large mass of it, many miles across, moved within a few
thousand feet of the surface. Before it cooled, fingers or branches of
pasty-textured material moved upward along lines of weakness in the
rock layers near the surface of the earth. Some of these pinched out,
while others formed local masses of varying size and shape. Devils
Tower and the nearby Missouri Buttes, as we know them today,
represent some of these offshoot bodies which solidified in pretty much
their present size and form at depths of possibly one to two thousand
feet beneath the surface. The phonolite porphyry, as the rock of Devils
Tower and the Missouri Buttes is known, is very hard."
Now the erosion part:
"During subsequent tens of millions of years, erosion has stripped away
the softer rock layers in which these masses formed, leaving them
standing as dominant landmarks. The process continues today as the
Belle Fourche and Little Missouri Rivers and their tributary streams,
aided by freezing, thawing, rain drops, and the other processes that
break down the rock, continue to alter the face of the earth in this
region."
or
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/national_parks_monumen
ts.html
Devils Tower:
Although Devils Tower has long been a prominent landmark in northeastern
Wyoming, the origin of the mammoth rock obelisk remains somewhat
obscure. Geologists agree that Devils Tower formed from molten rock
forced upwards from deep within the earth. Debate continues, however, as
to whether the rock cooled underground or whether Devils Tower magma
reached the surface. Current research supports the conclusion that
Devils Tower was not a volcano, but was injected between sedimentary
rock layers and cooled underground. The characteristic furrowed columns
are the result of contraction which occurred during the cooling of the
magma. Geologic estimates have placed the age of Devils Tower at greater
than 50 million years, although it is likely that erosion uncovered the
rock formations only one or two million years ago.
Glacial erosion
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/text/greatplains/text.html
"The uplift and volcanism that formed these mountains took place before
the streams began to cut downward and segment the Great Plains. The
mountains had been greatly dissected before the advent of the Great Ice
Age, when alpine glaciers formed on the Castle and the Crazy Mountains
and flowed down some of the stream-cut valleys. Alpine glacial features
such as cirques, in the high parts of the mountains, and glacially
modified U-shaped valleys (fig. 24) are impressive evidence of this
glaciation."
and...@my-deja.com
scot...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <930l8h$7nl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> > instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
> > oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
> >
>
> You'll have to add the Catholic Church to your "them" list, Andy.
Interesting cite, Scott. It suggests, in its conclusion that you did
not post, that the Catholic Church supports the Biblical flood account
more than I expected:
"Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of
baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private
opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter,
iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs
to the "matters of faith and morals" in which the Tridentine and the
Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of
the Church."
However, the Church's encyclopedia uses a different linguistic
translation of the flood to limit it in geography and humans. (I am
not aware of any Encyclicals on this issue, in contrast to the
evolution issue.)
But this thread is not about the Biblical account of the flood and its
possible translations. It's about Devils Tower -- and how
evolutionists are so emotionally averse to accepting the possibility of
an enormous flood. If the Bible had instead spoken in terms of a great
Fire, then evolutionists likely would not object to the possibility of
an enormous flood.
Andy
Adam Marczyk
> Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
> sides. Details are at
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> er.html
>
> Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
> mile deep in water.
Not at all. In fact, the very site you cited gives an alternative and much
more plausible explanation.
Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
> unique columns formed from a cooling process. Water best explains the
> cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater
> in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
> still runs nearby.
Many people have already pointed this out, but I will again. Need lots of
sledgehammer blows to drive in that spike, you know. If the Devil's Tower
had been submerged at the time of its formation, it would be made of pillow
lava, the only type of igneous rock that forms underwater. It isn't.
As for erosion patterns, I honestly have no idea whatsoever where you get
that. It would have to have been some very strange water currents that
formed those remarkably straight vertical lines.
> Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
> instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods.
Er, no. I have no objection to massive floods. The Black Sea one was
probably pretty big by anyone's standards. But the idea of a global flood as
depicted in Genesis is silly. Do you actually have quotes from any
evolutionists saying they categorically oppose the idea of all huge floods,
or did you just make that part up yourself?
> Do they oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
This one certainly does.
> Andy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Gyudon Z
It may well have been. But it remains an igneous intrusion into sedimentary
rock.
>> Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the softer
>> sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is now
>> visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself is
>> eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
>"Don't need no stinking flood to explain it." That's a classic!
>Archie Bunker could not have put it better.
>
>It's the pattern of erosion that strongly suggests water currents
>around the rock. Rain, snow, sun, some random wind doesn't cause that
>erosion pattern in the rock.
What, you mean the "fluted column" appearance?
Andy, you may want to ask yourself why columns were designed with flutes to
begin with.
You may also want to remember that too much water will overwhelm the fluting
and wear the surface fairly smooth.
>> >Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
>> >instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
>> >oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>> Yup, cause the evidence doesn't bear it out.
>Anything but a "stinking flood" that *them* might agree with???
There is no evidence that it took miles of water to do this. In fact, miles of
water would have carved horizontal (or at least diagonal) grooves into it, as
it flowed down into the oceans that you seem to think can be created by water
pressure.
The oceans would have to have formed almost instantaneously for the
hypothetical floodwaters to have run *straight down*.
Rain, on the other hand...
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
catshark
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> > > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> all
> > > sides. Details are at
> > >
>
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > > er.html
> > >
> > > Easy to describe, impossible to explain
> >
> > "impossible" for a moron to understand, you mean.
>
> Classic Darwinian namecalling there -- as recognizable as a heavy
> accent.
>
> [snip]
> > > Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
> > > unique columns formed from a cooling process.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So far so good ... until someone mentions "flood" ...
>
And there is the *nub* of your problem. All you do is *mention* flood,
as if that alone is any reason, in and of itself, to take it
seriously. Try giving any reason to believe in a global flood except
fantastical explanations for features which have otherwise normal
explainations that do not require amazing amounts of disappearing water
or an unexplained smooth geography.
>
> It's not lava. In fact, the cite I provided expressly stated that it
> was only "possibly[] an erosional remnant of a volcanic neck."
Another nub of your problem. The site also describes it as a "steep-
sided igneous body" "made of magma that solidified at a shallow
level". Try reading the parts you don't like as well as the ones you do
(though in this case I can't fathom why - since when did "possibly"
equal "not").
>
> Apparently you have no explanation for the erosion pattern so visible
> on Devils Tower. Chalk that up to pure chance and "eons of time"???
>
I hate to repeat myself, but exactly which pattern are you refering
to? The vertical columns? And just how does a flood cause those?
> Andy
>
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
LStew36183
Mashed potatoes. Richard Dreyful. That was too
easy....
okbye
rich hammett
> "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jan 2001 20:56:33 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
>> >other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> all
>> >sides. Details are at
>>
>>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_to
> w
>> >er.html
>> >
>> >Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
>> >mile deep in water.
>>
>> Oh? And exactly how does this explain it?
> The erosion matches the effect of water currents as though the rock
> were submerged.
So _one_ _year_ of being submerged was enough for underwater currents to
erode the hard igneous rock?
>> > Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
>> >unique columns formed from a cooling process.
>>
>> Unlikely. There is no evidence of volcanic activity anywhere in the
>> area. No volcanic ash, no lava flows, no debris...nada.
> So you disagree with Boikat about this.
No, not a volcano. Vulcanism, tho. I don't think Boikat said differently.
> Water resolves your objection, however -- the ash, lava flows, debris,
> etc., would have simply been washed away in a flood.
Whither?
>> > Water best explains the
>> >cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be
> greater
>> >in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
>> >still runs nearby.
>>
>> According to everything I've read about it, the Tower was formed by an
>> igneous intrusion into sedimentary rock, and the molten rock which
>> formed it did not even surface. Geologists may not agree on exactly
>> how it formed, but they do agree on that much.
> That looks like little more than "magic" as an explanation. In fact,
> most geologists agree with Boikat that this was part of a volcano.
No.
>> Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the softer
>> sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is now
>> visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself is
>> eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
> "Don't need no stinking flood to explain it." That's a classic!
> Archie Bunker could not have put it better.
> It's the pattern of erosion that strongly suggests water currents
> around the rock. Rain, snow, sun, some random wind doesn't cause that
> erosion pattern in the rock.
Cooling.
>> >Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
>> >instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
>> >oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>>
>> Yup, cause the evidence doesn't bear it out.
> Anything but a "stinking flood" that *them* might agree with???
Poor andy. You should try defending the Truth sometime, it's a lot easier.
rich
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
catshark
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <28u75t40i7nkbr81t...@4ax.com>,
> "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> > Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the
softer
> > sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is
now
> > visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself
is
> > eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
>
> "Don't need no stinking flood to explain it." That's a classic!
> Archie Bunker could not have put it better.
>
> It's the pattern of erosion that strongly suggests water currents
> around the rock. Rain, snow, sun, some random wind doesn't cause that
> erosion pattern in the rock.
>
Oh, wind patterns are random and water currents aren't? Common, Andy,
fess up! Your'e really a troll aren't you? No one can be that
dense. "I'm not really an idiot, but I play one on the usenet." Right?
Just in case anyone isn't getting Andy's little act, he really does
understand that molten rock can form into crystaline shapes as it cools
and he really did read the part of Nell's post about the surrounding
non-igneous material being worn away, leaving the igneous rock (more-or-
less) in the original shapes it formed in as it cooled.
>
> Andy
>
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
marcof...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <930r1l$ch6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> marcof...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Okay, since you're the expert neo-Neptunist here, explain it
> > already.
>
> A massive flood likely carried away all the volcanic remnants and
> eroded the rock. From the picture at the site above, you can even see
> the direction in which the water primarily flowed.
Nice site. I visited the Tower last summer. Pleasant drive up from
Sundance, through the Bear Lodge Mountains (yeah, there *are* other
mountains nearby, only they're not igneous rock). The Bear Lodges are
sedimentary rocks, older than the rock comprising the Tower (yeah, the
Tower magma solidified within the pile of sediments, making it
difficult for floode water to cool it). On the drive, the first view
of the Tower is from several miles away; it sticks up from the floor
of the Belle Fourche Rver Valley, and the view is sort of down on it
(yeah, the Bear Lodges are higher than the Tower). Today, the river
and its tribs drain generally northward, but they may have drained in
other directions previously. In any case, that river and its tribs
have water in them year around, even though the channels are puny by
some comparisons. It's wet enough in eastern Wyoming for that to
happen. So the river and its tribs are constantly flowing, eroding the
softer sedimentary material even at low flow rates, and using the
particles that it carries to erode even harder materials when it
encounters them. No reason to suspect that the ancestral Belle Fourche
didn't do the same. The bottom line is that a puny river system like
the Belle Fourche can easily expose, within a few million years, a
stubby little volcanic neck or conduit emplaced in softer sediments,
just by doing what it's doing today. Can you do the math? Sure you
can. If the Belle Fourche removes the softer sedimentary rock at a
rate of a meter every thousand years, how long would it take to expose
the Tower to its present level, even if it were originally under a pile
of sediments and volcanics?
> No other explanation is even remotely plausible.
Well, you just got one. And it fits with observation. Hell, it's
*based* on observation. And it don't need no steenking aliens, voodoo,
or or other magick.
> Feel free to look
> through the other postings here yourself. Their only significance is
> that many evolutionists oppose the possibility of an enormous flood at
> all costs, simply because their adversaries support one.
Andy, you aren't an adversary, you're a victim of self-inflicted
abuse. You don't even have the potential for being an adversary. You
do have troll talent, but you're afraid to defend any position other
than by assertion and whining (cf. your posts in this thread). You
have no significance. Your primary insignificance is that you oppose
the possibility of any explanation for *anything* geological other than
an enormous flood.
In spite of that, you are highly amusing.
jmonrad
ghos...@my-deja.com
> marcof...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <930ote$al1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > > er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
> > > rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood
as
> > > well.
> >
> > Okay, since you're the expert neo-Neptunist here, explain it
already.
> A massive flood likely carried away all the volcanic remnants and
> eroded the rock. From the picture at the site above, you can even see
> the direction in which the water primarily flowed.
Show that this requires a "massive flood"? Please explain which picture
supports your "direction of this elusive "massive" flood"?
> No other explanation is even remotely plausible. Feel free to look
> through the other postings here yourself. Their only significance is
You have failed to show that 1) your proposed mechanism is credible 2)
that it is supported by additional evidence. Does the region support a
massive flood? What was the prefered direction of the currents? Any
evidence of such prefered direction from topography?
Not to mention the dating problems.
> that many evolutionists oppose the possibility of an enormous flood at
> all costs, simply because their adversaries support one.
You are confused. It's up to our "adversaries" to provide some credible
evidence to support their claims. So far none have been provided.
I also assume that you have given up on your other claim that
"The rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
well."?
ghos...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But this thread is not about the Biblical account of the flood and its
> possible translations. It's about Devils Tower -- and how
> evolutionists are so emotionally averse to accepting the possibility
of
> an enormous flood.
Your comments are as usual disproven by the fact that evolutionists do
accept the possibility of enormous floods (Channeled Scablands, Mars)
but they also require supporting evidence. So far there is no evidence
of a global flood of Genesis proportions and many contradicting data.
> If the Bible had instead spoken in terms of a
great
> Fire, then evolutionists likely would not object to the possibility of
> an enormous flood.
Poor logic. Perhaps you should focus more on the topic at hand though
rather than create your strawmen?
Simeon Nevel
Let's see what 15 minutes of web surfing with "eroded volcanic plug"
will find:
Eagle rock near Lake Tahoe in California a crummy picture of which can be
found at:
http://www.tahoe.com/summers/hiking/eaglerock2.html
The following site lists several other similar eroded volcanic plugs in
the same general area:
http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/tahoe/geology.html
There's Mt. Kenya in a central Kenyan national park:
http://www.gorp.com/gorp/location/africa/kenya/ke_mtken.htm
Mt. Thielson in Oregon:
http://www.orst.edu/groups/omc/THIELSEN.html
Ship Rock in New Mexico (all on one line if this wraps in your
newsreader):
http://www.uta.edu/geology/geol1425earth_system/images
/gaia_chapter_5/shiprock_volcanic_neck.jpg
Beacon Rock in Vancouver, Canada
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section4/wacities/vancouver/scenicgorge/
Picacho Peak in Arizona (sorry for the wrapping again):
http://store.corbis.com/prodconfig/image_details.asp
?navid=top25&imageid=11464514
Need more?
Simeon
Simeon Nevel
>
>"Devils Tower rises 1,253 feet (382 m) above the
>nearby Belle Fouche River."
>
>How many feet in a mile andy?
Actually, the very top of the page says it's elevation is 5100+ feet. I
assume that means above sea-level.
Simeon
Simeon Nevel
>
>As for erosion patterns, I honestly have no idea whatsoever where you get
>that. It would have to have been some very strange water currents that
>formed those remarkably straight vertical lines.
To be fair, I don't really think Andy is talking about the vertical
columns. If you look at the picture at the top of the page, the side of
the tower facing the photographer appears to have had a scoop taken out of
it.
I guessing it's this feature that Andy's talking about.
Simeon
ghos...@my-deja.com
I'd presume that your excellent links would be enough. It does pay off
to take the time to do some research before making assertions though.
Not much of Andy's original assertions remains.
> Simeon
Bill Hudson
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
[snipped for brevity]
>
> And how many Devils Tower formations in nature??? One.
>
Sure about that?
"Devil's Tower" is spectacular, sure, but are you *sure* its the only
example of the type?
Better check again.
--
Bill Hudson
Bill Hudson
Devil's Postpile in the Mammoth Lakes region of California.
Actually, it isn't a 'plug' per se, but IIRC it is a remnant of a large
lava flow showing the same charactaristic hexagonal fracture pattern of
slow uniform cooling.
--
Bill Hudson
Bill Hudson
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
[snipped]
> But this thread is not about the Biblical account of the flood and its
> possible translations. It's about Devils Tower -- and how
> evolutionists are so emotionally averse to accepting the possibility of
> an enormous flood. If the Bible had instead spoken in terms of a great
> Fire, then evolutionists likely would not object to the possibility of
> an enormous flood.
c'mon andy, you can do better than this.
cf. "Channeled Scablands", the (multiple?) floods of the med.
'evolutionists' are not *at all* averse to accepting the possibility of
an enormous flood. As has been pointed out to you so many times in
this thread alone, we require *evidence*.
Where is your *evidence* that Devil's Tower (a) formed underwater or (b)
was eroded by a massive flood?
--
Bill Hudson
Mark VandeWettering
>Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
>other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all
>sides. Details are at
>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
>er.html
>
>Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
>unique columns formed from a cooling process. Water best explains the
>cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater
>in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
>still runs nearby.
>
>instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
>oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
You really are cretinous, aren't you?
'Impossible to explain'? We have a winner folks!
Mark
>Andy
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark VandeWettering
>And how many Devils Tower formations in nature??? One.
Shiprock, New Mexico leaps to mind as an obvious counterexample.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
>er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The
>rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
>well.
Tell me Andy, what kind of igneous rocks are formed when magma cools
rapidly?
>Andy
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <28u75t40i7nkbr81t...@4ax.com>,
> "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
>> >other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
>all
>> >sides. Details are at
>>
>>http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_to
>w
>> >er.html
>> >
>> >Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a
>> >mile deep in water.
>>
>
>The erosion matches the effect of water currents as though the rock
>were submerged.
Says who? Care to cite ANY geologist who made that claim? Ever? Anywhere?
>> > Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's
>> >unique columns formed from a cooling process.
>>
>> Unlikely. There is no evidence of volcanic activity anywhere in the
>> area. No volcanic ash, no lava flows, no debris...nada.
>
>So you disagree with Boikat about this.
It probably isn't a 'volcano' in the sense that it spewed ash and fire and
flowed lava over the surface. Currently the most popular theory is that it
never reached the surface.
>Water resolves your objection, however -- the ash, lava flows, debris,
>etc., would have simply been washed away in a flood.
Except for that lack of any signs of a flood, yeah. The reason that those
things are absent is because the magma never reached the surface of the earth.
>> > Water best explains the
>> >cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be
>greater
>> >in its middle than at its top (see picture at site above). A river
>> >still runs nearby.
>>
>> According to everything I've read about it, the Tower was formed by an
>> igneous intrusion into sedimentary rock, and the molten rock which
>> formed it did not even surface. Geologists may not agree on exactly
>> how it formed, but they do agree on that much.
>
>That looks like little more than "magic" as an explanation. In fact,
>most geologists agree with Boikat that this was part of a volcano.
Are you trying to confuse the issue? Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
The major difference between an "igneous intrusion", and a volcano
is whether it reaches the surface of the earth.
>> Erosion by water, wind, snow, etc. over time has worn away the softer
>> sandstone and shale, exposing the much harder igneous rock that is now
>> visible. That erosion is still going on today, and the Tower itself is
>> eroding visibly. Don't need no stinking flood to explain it.
>
>"Don't need no stinking flood to explain it." That's a classic!
>Archie Bunker could not have put it better.
More than not needing a flood to explain it, there is no evidence of a flood
to support that hypothesis.
>It's the pattern of erosion that strongly suggests water currents
>around the rock. Rain, snow, sun, some random wind doesn't cause that
>erosion pattern in the rock.
Says who?
>> >Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to
>> >instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. Do they
>> >oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
>>
>> Yup, cause the evidence doesn't bear it out.
>
>Anything but a "stinking flood" that *them* might agree with???
I'm beginning to long for Erik and his inane spreadsheets...
Mark
>Andy
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
Boikat
Boikat wrote:
>
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A53E162...@frontiernet.net>,
> > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no
> > > > other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on
> > all
> > > > sides. Details are at
> > > >
> > http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > > > er.html
> > >
> > > > Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once
> > a
> > > > mile deep in water.
> > >
> > > What? Doesn't it rain in Wyoming?
> >
> > It doesn't rain much in Wyoming.
>
> But it still rains. Imagine that.
>
> >
> > At any rate, look at the erosion pattern at
>
> You might want to do that. But first, why don't
> you open a geology book?
>
> > http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/devils_tow
> > er.html. The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall.
>
> The erosion pattern is due to the fracture
> pattern, not "currents".
>
> > The
> > rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as
> > we