Abstract

The notion of geologically recent uplift of the Sierra Nevada is derived from Whitney’s 1865 geologic cross section, which is imaginary. There is no uncontested field evidence to support the late Cenozoic Sierran uplift paradigm. Highly accessible evidence contrary to Whitney’s geologic cross section occurs along Rawhide Road near Jamestown, in the range’s foothills. Nevertheless, Whitney’s interpretation fit the perception of his contemporaries and so was accepted as fact and was passed down, with elaborations added over generations. Sierran geoscientists generally believe that all uplift evidence was discovered early on, which was not the case. Across the entire range, field evidence exists that is inconsistent with the paradigm, and this evidence is unknown, unacknowledged, and/or unreferenced. The greatest problem with the paradigm is biological: under it, the Sierra Nevada would have been too low and warm for giant sequoias to have migrated southwest into the range. American geomorphology is considerably based on the Sierra’s uplift and glacial imagined evidence, and because in geomorphology there is no incentive to be correct and no penalty to be incorrect, this branch of the earth sciences may forever remain as mainstream creation science; that is, miracles, or implausible events, occur. Additionally, the origin and evolution of the Sierra’s uplift creation myth, which is the result of very intelligent geoscientists, is applicable to theological scholarship on how religions, propagated by intelligent and literate men, originated and evolved over time.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1551-3211
Print ISSN
0066-9628
Pages
pp. 102-140
Launched on MUSE
2014-09-30
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.