Novarupta: Biggest Eruption of the 20th and 21st (so far) Centuries

[comingatchu]

You seem to be afraid to commit to an opinion as to the age of the earth and universe. Are you afraid of being mocked? Considering what a very simple question it is that I've asked, that's the only reason I can think of to account for your evasiveness.

Also, you seem to forget that even if I didn't know, as you put it, "the difference between natural history research and scientific research", it would only take me a few minutes of searching the internet to come up with that answer.

Pony up!

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Afraid?! You can't be serious. I am just testing to see if I am talking to a scholar. I am not, but maybe that will change in the future.

As a scientist, I do not know how old the Earth is, because science cannot answer that question. A meteorologist collects data and makes predictions about weather that can be verified. A geologist uses the same format to determine Earth age, but cannot verify his claims without a time machine. Do you have a time machine?

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

Mountains of research into the ages of the earth and the universe has been performed over the years, and as the available technology gets better these approximations get more precise. No more than a coroner needs a time machine to ascertain an approximate time of death for a corpse, neither do scientists need a time machine to profer an approximate age for the universe. Scientists reach conclusions based on the best available evidence they have at the time. That's the way it works.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Calculating earth age is different than forensic science, but you obviously can't see the difference. Allow me to explain. Forensic scientists have collected loads of data FROM THE POINT OF DEATH onwards to make reasonable models. For natural history to be on the same level as forensic science, researchers need to collect data FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN onwards. Of course, that's impossible, so that's why ALL claims made about Earth age are historical claims, not scientific claims.

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

The light from the most distant parts of the universe is just now reaching Earth and we can DIRECTLY OBSERVE THIS. This allows scientists to look into the past and actually works somewhat like that time machine you previously referred to. Read up on the scientific discipline of Cosmology and you'll get a handle on how this information allows scientists to estimate the age of the universe. Once again, about what age do you personally believe the Earth and the universe to be?

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu You already know what my faith-based belief in Earth age is. Didn't you watch the video, or are you just here to rant? You are the one who needs to read up on cosmology, and while you're at it, you might want to read up on time dilation. Also, some cosmologists use 1 over the Hubble constant to come up with a universe age between 13-14 billion years ago. Others think it might be 2/3 times 1/H, but that makes the universe younger than our galaxy. Alternatively, both could be wrong.

[comingatchu]

You seem to be purposely evading an incredibly easy question. Do you, or do you not, agree with the most recent approximations of the age of both the earth and the universe as has been determined by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? If not, then please state what you believe their ages to be. In my initial post I referred to the scientific disciplines, so why no stick with a scientific perspective rather than a natural history perspective when stating your opinion.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Your options are as follows 1) do things my way or 2) leave me alone.

Or, if you don't know the answer to my question, a humble admittance of that will be gladly accepted.

[comingatchu]

So let me get this straight. Even though the findings of every single scientific discipline refutes the possibility of the earth being only a few thousand years old, which includes the disciplines of Cosmology, Geology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, and Anthropology, and much of this scientific research has been performed by Nobel laureates, you still believe that, not only the earth, but the entire universe is only a few thousand years old? Have I got that correct?

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Well, the short answer to your question is "no"

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

Hmmmmmm, then what do you think the 'minimum' and 'maximum' age of both the earth and the universe are? The consensus of the scientific community puts the earth's age at about 4.5 billion years old and the universe at about 12 to14 billion years old. What do you think?

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Are you asking me as a scientist or a natural history researcher? If you have no idea what the difference is, I would be happy to educate you. If you have no interest in learning something new, then we have nothing else to discuss. What's it gonna be?

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

From either perspective. Lay it on me.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu I am not convinced you know the difference between natural history research and scientific research, and I want to discuss this with an educated person. Please explain the difference between natural history research and scientific research.

[kirkkrunk]

Don't assume you understand God or the earth because you read the Bible. 

[ichthmus153]

@kirkkrunk The only assumption I make is that I will know MORE about God and the Earth by reading the Bible than if I did not read the Bible. It would be foolish for me to think I UNDERSTAND. Only God understands the whole story, us humans can only know part (I Corinthians 13:9-13).

[Mauricioyfrancini]

excelent documentary, here in costa rica we have the Arenal volcano which is one of the most active volcanos in amarica. and it is very beutufull as well.

[ichthmus153]

@Mauricioyfrancini Thanks for the comment, I will have to put Arenal volcano on my "must see" list! I did a brief search that said it is the 10th most active volcano in the world, wow! I just hope it doesn't get as active as Novarupta.

[sabretoothed69]

You say how do you know the Ark wasn't there because you were not there, but you too were not at the Novarupta so how do you know it was there :P?

[ichthmus153]

@sabretoothed69 Well, first I read the historical account by Dr. Robert Griggs. Then I went and stood on top of Novarupta, and I concluded that the historical account matched the evidence. I have also read the Bible's account of a global cataclysm, and I have read about Noah's Ark. I have not stood on top of the Ark like I stood on top of Novarupta, but the historical account of a flood matches A LOT of evidence found on our world today. I have faith that there was an Ark.

[odinata]

Test YEC. Do you allow comments?

[ichthmus153]

@odinata did you notice there are over 60 comments? Yes, I allow some comments, but not all. Feel free to agree or disagree with me, just do it with humility and kindness, two attributes that should come natural to a real scientist.

[RHYMEMAIDEN1]

With regard to the Jurassic sandstone, whether it was formed in a flood or not can be determined by looking at the characterisitics of the sediment that forms the rock. With regard to the age of the Earth, reflect on the 10 of thousands of volcanic eruptions of which there is good evidence and imagine how much SO2, CO2 and other gases would have been introduced into the atmosphere. If they happened over a few 1,000 years, the atmosphere would be toxic.

[ichthmus153]

@RHYMEMAIDEN1 , the scientific literature about the Naknek formation and other formations in the area suggests it was almost all water-deposited sediment, over 15,000 ft. deep in places!

Yes, the atmosphere might be toxic, unless of course most of the SO2 and CO2 precipitated out into limestone, gypsum, etc. It's interesting how there are massive beds of these materials all over the world.

[RHYMEMAIDEN1]

@ichthmus153 Most sediments are laid down in an aqueous environment; that's not synonymous with a flood. Flood deposits are rather distinctive and that was my point concerning the sedimentology. And, with regard to precipitating limestone, you don't see that the ocean's ability to absorb that much carbon dioxide would be overwhelmed and the oceans would become too acidic for precipitation of CaCO3?

[ichthmus153]

@RHYMEMAIDEN1 , I would agree that most sediments worldwide are (were) laid down in an aqueous environment. Novarupta would be a notable exception. You are correct that flood deposits can be distinctive. Seawater has a carbonate buffer system, correct? So sometimes it is too acidic for CaCO3 precipitation, and sometimes it isn't. If dissolution and subsequent precipitation of toxic volcanic gases was important in the past, there is plenty of evidence that the precipitation occurred rapidly.

[RHYMEMAIDEN1]

@ichthmus153 If such precipitation ocurred rapidly, then it did so discontinuously, since there isn't one giant limestone deposit. Rather the stratigraphic record is complex, with many kinds of sediments representing a range of depositional environments interspersed with the limestone. And of course, there are many erosional unconformities within the rocks, including angular unconformities.

[ichthmus153]

@RHYMEMAIDEN1 , yep, I would agree that the stratigraphic record is complex and full of mysteries, but it is fun to try and make some sense out of what happened in the past.

[RHYMEMAIDEN1]

Very enjoyable video. Thanks!

[ZachandRob07]

it is impossible for our earth to be 3.5 billion years old. because if our earth is that old, so is our sun. And if you reverse the rate that the sun is burning out at 3.5 billion years it would have been so large that our planet earth would have been turned to toast=) look how everything works out perfect for life on our planet. Its no accident. The flood really happened there is proof all over the earth. not to mention they found the ark right where the bible stated it was.

[Snailbarf]

kinda funny how you there. Charter a float plane and then TAKE THE BUS. Can I get a transfer to Redoubt for 50 cents?

But I get it. When I went to Pinatubo I had to paraglide in and then hail a cab.

[ichthmus153]

@Snailbarf that's awesome!

[primeslasher]

It was great Experience Man thx for the video loved it

[sabretoothed69]

lol and did the Dinosaurs go in the ark too?

[ichthmus153]

@sabretoothed69 I don't know if dinosaurs got on Noah's Ark because I wasn't there, but unless they went extinct before The Flood, then yes, I'm guessing they put young ones on Noah's Ark.

[amotah123]

very interesting and fun to watch

[steveshiplett]

Thank you so much for posting this.

[ichthmus153]

@steveshiplett You're welcome!

[24sgalover]

I love this! I think it'd be fun to go out there one day...good stuff man! Keep it up! Don't let the haters get ya down

[ichthmus153]

@24sgalover Thank you, glad you liked it!

[sabretoothed69]

All good, until they it starts crapping on about the Genesis flood and other BS

[ichthmus153]

@sabretoothed69 Aww, come on now, there's evidence for the Genesis flood, and there's nothing wrong with talking about that. A perfect interpretation of the past is impossible, because there is no way to verify what actually happened. My interpretation includes the belief that God was not lying when He said there was a global cataclysm that lasted about a year.

[tmmaciek]

great thanks

[sokingssddk]

Great video, i learned alot.

[ichthmus153]

Thank you.

[fewthe3rd]

I only take notes from people I have paid to learn from.

More explanation:

Uniformitarianism does not relate to rates of events, it only relates to the underlying processes dictated by the laws of physics. All it says is that the physical mechanisms that drive present day events are the same mechanisms that drove processes long ago. IE: gravity acts between objects with mass; things melt when heated; friction resists movementevery law of the physical world. These laws dont change with time.

[ichthmus153]

Erosion rates would be one of the "underlying processes" dictated by the laws of physics.

You mentioned previously that erosion rates have not been constant. I agree. And this makes it impossible to use science to "prove" anything about the age of the Earth.

But, we can speculate, and evidence supports both stasis (uniformitarianism) and sudden appearance (catastrophism). And when I look at TVTTS, it appears that "stasis" periods were short, and uplift was not that long ago.

[fewthe3rd]

Posting attempt 4:

Erosion rates are dictated by:

rock durability (physical and chemical laws)

and

uplift rates which is controlled by tectonic setting and how quickly the lower crust can 'flow' (which is controlled by rock strength: underlying laws of that are fluid dynamics and chemical bond strength)

In simpler terms: erosion rate is an artifact of the laws of physics interacting with each other, not a law itself.

The science of the age of the Earth:

USGS website: Geologic time

[ichthmus153]

Posting attempt 4? Don't forget to hit the "Post Comment" button. I will reject comments from arrogant, crude, know-it-alls, but your comments have been mostly cordial and I appreciate that.

Thank you for the education on erosion rates, although I'm not sure what you are getting at. Besides describing Novarupta, one major point of my video is that science cannot answer the question "How old is the earth?" All scientists can do is speculate about earth age. What do you say?

[fewthe3rd]

Thank You, you been so as well. I pressed the button but computers hate me.

I dont believe that God would perform an event and then leave evidence behind that covers it up or contradicts it, and I dont buy into the whole testing our faith argument.

And what is '7 days' to god?

I believe that it is possible to determine the age of the earth, though I am not very proficient at explaining it so I will redirect to the USGS website and their online pamphlet on geologic time.

[ichthmus153]

If I am looking at the same USGS website, it describes two time scales, relative and radiometric. There is no "absolute time scale" because this is impossible without a time machine. Time scales are always based on speculative, unprovable assumptions.

What is 7 days to God? Good question. I believe it is the same as 7days is to us, from what I read in Genesis Ch. 1, confirmed in Exodus 20:11. If God wanted to, he could have created everything in 6 milliseconds, but He chose 6 days instead.

[fewthe3rd]

Radiometric dating is fairly provable. We have U235 decay rates down; as proof we have the a-bomb.

And in fact NOTHING we do is in absolutes.

An example: we use limited text (or speech for that matter) to convey complex thoughts to others ultimately leaving out a lot of our pitiful understanding of anything.

7 days: I would go the other direction with that argument. 7 days to God = 4.6 billion years for the planet.

Then lost in translation when he/they talked about it to dumb humans :)

[ichthmus153]

We know some interesting things about radiometric dating, but there are some assumptions in the methods that have yet to be proven, such as the assumption that radioactive decay rates are constant at all T and P.

Saying "nothing we do is in absolutes" is a contradiction, because that is an absolute statement.

I'm absolutely sure that two apples, plus two more apples does not equal five apples. And if there are no absolutes, why does 0° Kelvin = absolute zero, not relative zero?

[fewthe3rd]

Limited nature of human text leads to contradictions (I addressed this last time).

Absolute zero is the theoretical state at which all molecular activity ceases: it is derived from the Ideal Gas Law (which is false in most cases). Even deep space is not that cold. It is not an absolute, thats just what chemist call it.

Yes there are assumptions in radiometric dating. But, right now you're assuming that you're talking to a human and that the bible is true, am I right.

Assumptions are okay.

[ichthmus153]

I realize that "absolute zero" is a theoretical state. I hope you didn't focus so much on that and miss my point though. The "all things are relative" idea is an overused, not to mention false, view of the world. It would be better to say "some things are relative", because some things are absolute.

As far as assumptions go, I am not against them, but when we use them to speculate about the age the earth, we are not doing science anymore. And I will assume decay rates are not constant :)

[fewthe3rd]

I focused on it too muchbut I did get (and I disagree with) your point that "all is not relative. Think of the way we learn: we use past experiences (be it learning that the stove is hot or that 2+2=4) to measure what we experience every day. So all of human experience is relative, and unfortunately that is all we can talk about

All science is based on assumption. On your decay stance, drop blind:

"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another." - G. Lichtenberg

[ichthmus153]

You know, the Greeks almost invented calculus, but their cyclical (and relativistic) view of time got in their way. They couldn't get their minds around absolutes like infinity and eternity, things that also describe God. Have you had many calculus courses yet?

It can also be said that blind belief in one thing (like the earth's age) springs from blind belief in another (believing decay rates are constant). Look up nuclear transmutation, and keep in mind the limitations of science.

[fewthe3rd]

Hey, I said "drop blind" before the quote; I didn't want to undermine its integrity so I left that word in.

I made a 5 on the AP Calculus-AB exam, a B in Cal 2, and an A in Cal 3. I will be starting Differential Equations on Jan 12.

From what I gather, Nuclear Transmutation (NT) is what happens when bombardment of particle radiation causes the number of neutrons in a nucleus to change. I have a feeling this is going to loop back to *the forces behind the process observed* argument again.

[ichthmus153]

Keep up the good work in Calculus! If you haven't already, take the time to read Newton's Principia, and you will better understand absolutes.

Artificial NT creates new elements with a particle accelerator. Since temperature=average kinetic energy (KE), imagine the KE of particles in hot, pressurized liquid rock. Under such conditions, radioisotopes would probably break down at abnormally high rates.

Assuming constant decay rates to extrapolate earth age is not science but speculation.

[fewthe3rd]

Radiometric dating is not preformed on magma (as indicated in your last reply with the word liquid) instead the tests are preformed on mineral samples: multiple singular crystal grains from a parent rock. These crystals had to have stayed in the crust for them not to melt (as shown by their existence); and as a result the MAXIMUM temperatures reached: 1200 C. Temperature for NT in particle accelerators?: About 10 million C. Need sources?

Science is speculation that fits available facts.

[ichthmus153]

I know rad. dating is not performed on magma (it's hard to make my point with only 500 characters). But the rock that is used to measure earth ages most certainly was magma at some time, and under those conditions, radioactive decay rates were probably much higher than those in solid rock. Radioactive materials are by nature unstable, and it makes sense to me that higher temps would cause higher decay rates.

Science is about testing and verifying hypotheses. You can't verify earth age.

[fewthe3rd]

The max temperature inside the earth (core) is about 5000 C, as indicated by computer modeling based on speeds and refraction angles of seismic waves. NT cannot be reached at these relatively low temperatures. On science: you just restated what I said last time. Speculation produces hypotheses. Testing and verifying is finding facts to adhere to. On rad dating: it tests the age of mineral grains; when they form the clock starts and the oldest ones give age of earth, ultimatly NT is not an issue.

[ichthmus153]

Here's Webster's def. of speculate: "to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence". Beliefs about earth age are speculation.

Spec. doesn't produce hypotheses, observations do.

Not sure what your point is about testing and verifying, but you can't verify earth ages, so it's not science.

The max temp may be 5000 C today, but has it always been that? Have radioisotope decay rates been measured at any temperatures higher than room temperature? I'm asking 'cause I don't know.

[fewthe3rd]

Random House's def of speculate: "to engage in thought or reflection, to indulge in conjectural thought, to theorize". You're trying to 'win' with semantics. Ah, the limits of language (see above). And observations produce facts.

I will note you said "Beliefs about earth age are speculation," your definition includes you too.

As for science: NT NOT AN ISSUE. We test mineral grain ages, thus no high temperatures, thus no NT.

Novarupta was a sediment forming event, not a depositional.

[ichthmus153]

I am happy to say my beliefs about earth age are speculative, because that is the honest thing to do. Good scientists should be humble, and understand science has limits. Earth ages are outside the bounds of science because we cannot prove them. We can barely prove tomorrow's weather, but at least we can verify whether our predictions were accurate. We have NO WAY to do this with earth age.

No human knows if NT was ever an issue, or whether radioisotope decay rates are really constant.

[fewthe3rd]

Some people enjoy the world by looking at mountains, others the beach. I find the best way to appreciate God's creation is by trying to understand all I can about it; however limited that understanding might be.

You are arguing that Earth age notions are inconsequential because they cannot be directly observed. As it turns out there is a way to verify (in only slightly) those notions: by comparing the results of other methods and seeing if they correlate.

Science can include abstractions.

[ichthmus153]

I am arguing that Earth age notions are speculation and not real science. Correlating one unverifiable guess with another does not mean you verified the results with direct observation. What it does mean is you are trying to extrapolate a date for the Earth using equations based on present-day data. Extrapolation is bad science.

I agree science can include abstractions. Math is the language of science, and math includes abstractions.

[fewthe3rd]

So by your logic astronomy, particle physics, chemistry (organic and in-organic), and other disciplines are not science.

We cannot directly observe stars (their light took billions of years to reach us).

We cannot directly observe how atoms, and subatomic particles move and act (we can only see their effects).

We cannot see each individual protein preform its function in a cell or any molecule take part in a reaction (they are too small).

Your reasoning says none of this is science.

[ichthmus153]

You've been having trouble following my logic ever since you started posting. Newton said F=Gm1m2 over r-squared. We don't know why this works, but experiment after experiment verifies it.

Age of the earth measurements only provide evidence. You can't verify whether the assumptions made and formulas used really explain anything.

Helium diffusion rates and radiohalos provide evidence of a young earth, but that is all they do.

The logical conclusion here is that science has limits.

[fewthe3rd]

First, your opening sentence was a little insulting... though it is YOUR logic.

2nd, on science producing evidence: think forensics (NOT TV): minor details (evidence) are found that point to a murderer. Most of the time it is not nearly as pretty and perfect as seen on TV, but it works to VERIFY who did it.

Science is working out explanations for a phenomenon using evidence.

Science does have limits, but it is very presumptuous of you to tell others where those limits are, Mr. Humble.

[ichthmus153]

Please understand my goal is to educate, not insult. If you don't follow my logic (or don't want to), either stop posting or happily accept a bit of criticism.

That said, your last post failed to mention that forensic evidence is meaningless without the murderer. No murderer = no verification.

With earth age, we have lots of evidence, but we cannot hunt down the "murderer" without a time machine.

I trust the Bible to be historically true, and encourage you to do so also.

[fewthe3rd]

Great video, I wish I had shot more when I went to VTTS over the summer.

Everything was okay until you said a few things about the Naknek formation. Its not just shale, it also has conglomerates (old river channels with cobbles) between the various layers and it has sandstones in others, or at least that is what hands on showed me. So NOT one event, sorry. But the biggest fact problem was when you said shale is cemented ash, its not its compressed clays that chemically weathered from rocks.

[ichthmus153]

Thanks for the post! VTTS is awesome! Since I made this video, I've researched the Naknek Formation a little more. In USGS Bulletin 2020, Church et al (1994) say the Naknek formation was created by continuous sedimentary deposition. On p. 561 of Geol. of Nat. Parks, 6th ed., The Naknek formation is described as forming from rapidly eroding coastal sediments, along with a "considerable volume" of volcanic debris. From this info and other places, I don't think it formed the way you are describing.

[fewthe3rd]

Geological Society of America Bulletin May 2005 v. 117 no. 5-6 p. 570-588 : Quote: The Naknek Formation is divided into The lower Naknek Formation comprises a conglomeratic fan-delta lithofacies association [i.e. river] The upper Naknek Formation comprises a shallow marine shelf lithofacies association And figure 7 shows massive sandstones. It formed very similarly to the way I described. I am a Christian, and I prefer to read and believe what God wrote with his own hands: rocks.

[ichthmus153]

Glad you're a Christian! If the Naknek formation has a "two part stratigraphy" as Trop et al suggest, then great, I would just disagree with the time scales.

Consider that in 60 hours, Novarupta emitted extensive layers of welded tuff ( I think that is actually what I am walking on when I jump the Lethe in the video), ash, banded pumice, a rhyolite plug, etc. Surely, in a 1-year long global flood, the Naknek Formation, 15,000 ft deep in places, could have been formed in a two-part process.

[fewthe3rd]

TimeScale? OK The Naknek is a compressed rock that used to be sediment. The compressing part is the key. It takes 10s of 1000s of years for the proper physiological changes in sediment to occur for it to become a 'rock' as opposed to a pile of unconsolidated mush. So... How in the few 1000 years since the 'flood' did this one 'layer' which actually looks like a whole range of different depositional environments solidify, experience deformation (seen in regional uplift), and then erode that much?

[ichthmus153]

If we are both honest here, neither one of us knows how long it took to create the Naknek formation. And the Naknek formation is a "formation" not a layer, so it makes sense that it would have a whole range of depositional environments. Most modern geologists still try to interpret everything through Charles Lyell's idea that "the present is the key to the past". I don't think this always works. Fortunately, catastrophism is becoming more accepted, because it explains many things better.

[fewthe3rd]

Charles' idea is simple: gravity was as strong a force WAY back when as it is today; water froze at the same temperature back then as it does today. It works, the fact that people do anything hinges on the idea that the 'laws of physics will continue to be the same both a few seconds from now as well as a few millennia from now. Uniformitarianism is true. If not: you appeared 2 seconds ago, prove me wrong. By the way, you admitted to different depositional environments meaning not one flood.

[ichthmus153]

I believe there was a global cataclysm, as described in Genesis 7. The rains lasted for 40 days, but after that, it took 10 months for the water to recede just to the tops of the mountains. During this time, surely more than one depositional environment could be laid down.

Applying strict uniformitarianism to the Naknek formation, if it is 145 million yrs old, and if streams today incise it at rates of 1 cm/yr (Whipple et al, 2000), then there should be 900-mile deep canyons in TVTTS!

[fewthe3rd]

Belief is not proof. You have unfortunately misunderstood some basic geology jargon: a depositional environment (DE) is the setting in which sediment was laid down:>> If there was a super-sea then there would only be ONE marine DE without river related layers (as discussed above they are there). As for the 9000-miles, that is a very flawed piece of logic. You are assuming that the erosion rates have always been the same; nope the region was below sea level, then up lifted allowing for erosion.

[ichthmus153]

I know that belief is not proof. You might want to watch my video again and take notes this time ;)

The reason my 900-mile deep canyon is a flawed piece of logic is because I based it on the flawed piece of uniformitarian logic that says "the present is the key to the past".

You said the region was uplifted allowing for erosion, and I agree. However, if uplift was even 100,000 years ago, there should be at least 1000 m deep canyons by now, but they ain't there. So when did uplift happen?

[rimrocker1423]

Awesome Video! What an incredible aspect of God's creation! Thanks for posting!

[texasdrilling]

Spectacular place! Thanks for sharing.