Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 10:40 PM
333 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (4 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 17/37 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
343536Next
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Percy
Member
Posts: 16298
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 481 of 533 (730491)
06-28-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:28 PM


The hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are limestone, which is much softer than sandstone or siltstone. The White Cliffs of Dover also erode at a rate of roughly 1 cm/year (which is same as 2 feet per hundred years).

The sandstone and siltstone in the buttes of Monument Valley erode at a far slower rate of around 15 cm per thousand years for sandstone, and maybe 5 cm per thousand years for siltstone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 482 of 533 (730504)
06-28-2014 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:34 PM


River as it now is couldn't have created the canyon, which I do think is intuitively obvious but that won't do it for you will it.

Do you mean the river as it is NOW, or the river as it was before it was dammed and diverted?

Current average discharge is about 58 m3/sec.

Historic average discharge about 640 m3/sec (about 11 times current rate)

It had a historic peak flow of 2,800 m3/sec during the summer season (about 48 times current average)

Maximum recorded flow was 10,900 m3/sec in 1884 (about 188 times current average flow)

Roughly 90% of the Colorado's discharge comes from snowpack melt, mostly from the Rockies. I seem to remember there was supposed to be a couple ice ages during the time that the GC was being carved, which would have contributed significantly to the Colorado's flow. I don't think it unreasonable to estimate discharge rates to be double average historic flow. That would be a flow rate of 5,600 m3/sec, about 100 times current flow rates.

That would not be the "river as it is now" would it? Could a river 100 times larger than the current Colorado carve the GC in 5 million years?

Source

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:10 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 483 of 533 (730506)
06-28-2014 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Faith
06-28-2014 1:31 PM


The thing is, at the rate given, they have obviously NOT been eroding for the supposed millions of years since they were formed.

Well, show me who's doing the supposing: quote me someone who sets an age on an individual hoodoo. Then we'll look at how they did it and whether it contradicts the figure given for the rate of erosion. But if this person exists only in your head, this will diminish your triumph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 1:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 484 of 533 (730507)
06-28-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:34 PM


Anyway we're getting off the fact that massive erosion occurred after all the strata were in place rather than during their laying down, and that part is demonstrable despite all the weird ways it's getting obfuscated here, and that order of things, again, is evidence that the whole Old Earth scenario is a crock.

So, archaeological evidence suggests that the GC has been inhabited by humans for 4,000 years. Evidence for these civilizations is found in Redwall limestone caves, which is quite far down in the canyon.

Ancestral Pueblos moved into the area about 500BCE (about 2,500 years ago) and had established stable settlements by 500CE. The most accessible of these was built about 1185.

The first Europeans reached the GC in 1540, only 3,800 years after the flood.

Source

SO... how long DID it take the flood waters to carve the GC? 300 years? 1,800 years? As much as 3,800 years?

And a followup question ... where is all that sediment now?

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : typo


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:24 AM herebedragons has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 485 of 533 (730513)
06-28-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
06-28-2014 8:05 AM


RAZD you "show" me this that and the other and I disagree with it. ...
You also "show" me what you are calling "erosional patterns" in the Grand Canyon and I disagree with all that too. ...

Curiously, your "disagreement" is pure opinion unsupported by a single dust particle of objective evidence, and opinion has been demonstrated to have remarkably negligible effect on reality in any form ...

The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time ...

Did NOT occur and moreover COULD NOT have occurred, based on the MASSIVE amount of visible objective empirical evidence that lines the canyon wall.

To think otherwise is delusional.

... Lake Missoula was most probably water left standing after the Flood, as were the other huge "prehistoric" lakes. And then they all drained away, the Missoula catastrophically.

Why is there only ONE scablands, but MANY v-shaped river valleys?

Why does the U-shaped river valley formation caused by massive catastrophic outflow in the Palouse River ...

quote:
Why the Flood Never Happened, Message 387:

Notice the difference between the fairly straight U bottom form of the canyon and the Grand Canyon's meandering V bottom


There is a difference in the valleys because the erosion is different -- Palouse from rapid catastrophic flow, Grand Canyon from typical river flows cutting gradually into the rocks and forming a V-shape. Curiously geologists CAN tell the difference.

For your scenario to be valid the Grand Canyon sections would have to look like the Palouse river canyon sections: they DON'T.

And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh I do Faith, you are talking about pure fantasy ignoring counter evidence delusion.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 8:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 11:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 486 of 533 (730516)
06-28-2014 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 4:50 PM


The way I figure it, the hoodoos of Monument Valley must have been carved by runoff as the flood waters receded. Since the waters began receding on day 150 and the land was completely dry by day 371, this sets the upper limit of the amount of time it took to carve the area. So, the area was carved in less than 221 days.

Monument Valley is about 28.73 square miles and some hoodoos stand 1000 feet above the canyon floor. This amounts to 5.44 cubic miles of material that needs to be removed.

So we have 5.44 cubic miles of material to remove in 221 days. This converts to an erosive rate of 3.62x109 ft3 /day.

The hoodoos of Monument Valley must have been carved from Sept, 2348 BCE until March, 2347 BCE at the rate of 3.62x109 ft3 /day.

quote me someone who sets an age on an individual hoodoo

** Faith can quote me as a source for the age of the hoodoos and the rate of erosion required to produce them.

But if this person exists only in your head

I'm real, I assure you.

HBD

ABE: I mistakenly attributed hoodoos to Monument Valley.

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:54 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 487 of 533 (730569)
06-29-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Percy
06-28-2014 2:10 PM


The oldest layers of the buttes in Monument Valley are maybe 300 million years old, and they have only been exposed to erosive forces for tens of millions of years, but they're aren't tens of millions of years of accumulation of scree because scree, too, is subject to erosive forces. Particles erode off each piece of scree, the piece becomes smaller and smaller, and finally there is nothing left. But of course more scree is continually added to the pile as long as the buttes continue to exist.

Yes, well, all that is just wild guessing too, to make it fit with the estimated tens of millions of years. (I know my two billion should have been millions instead). Scree once positioned on the pile has no reason to keep disintegrating like that, it's just going to get covered over by more scree. Anyway, the more likely scenario is that in all that time the butte should have been eroded down to nothing but a pile of scree in itself. IMHO of course.

The sandstone/siltstone sides of the buttes in monument valley erode at a maximum rate of about a half foot per thousand years,

I couldn't find an estimate for this, where did you find it? And how do they know this? What are they measuring and where -- the girth of the butte itself or the pile at the bottom or what? And over what period did they do measurements? I don't have any reason that I know of to dispute it but such an estimate needs more explanation. Half a foot off where? Are we talking about a removal of half a foot of the exposed surface of the butte all the way around? A thousand feet tall by what, three thousand around? by half a foot? I get 450,000 cubic feet that way, off a volume of about 500 million cubic feet. Rounding off the 450 to 500 that's about one one-thousandth of the total volume in a thousand years, so in 4300 years that wouldn't be very much, which does seem to validate your numbers. Except that the loss of a thousandth of the volume every thousand years should have reduced the whole thing to a pile of dust in a million (1000 x 1000) years. But there it is still standing, perhaps half to three quarters of its original volume still standing.

and the scree at the base of the buttes is the material that eroded off their sandstone/siltstone faces. It we look at the image of West Mitten Butte again, which towers a thousand feet above the valley floor, we can see that the scree is in piles that are many, many feet deep:

But of course we don't know the actual amount there do we? And if you look closely at the scree area it appears that it isn't all scree but that the scree has collected on top of a tier of layers that were already there which would of course take up quite a bit of the total volume of that talus or skirt. Unless those tiers were built to hold the scree? Hard to tell from the picture.

Since the scree is in piles at least a hundred feet thick, then at a rate of a half foot per thousand years it must have been accumulating for at least a hundred thousand years.

Seems to me we need to know just exactly how much scree there is in that pile.

You also haven't explained how narrow towers survived floods so forceful they eroded rock at a rate many, many times faster than even Niagara Falls,

[abe: Of course they weren't rock yet, nor the layers that were cut away from them. /abe] I don't recall estimating the speed of the water running off around the monuments. I supposed that the monuments were preserved simply because the water cut a track around them for some reason having to do with its flow pattern and once a track was cut it would of course continue to flow in that track. I'm sure it cut tracks in many places but overflowed them eventually, so that only the monuments that we have now remained. And this is a huge plain the water formed, no doubt the surface of one of the layers that got exposed during the runoff. Running across a plain wouldn't allow it to pick up anywhere near the speed it would if it were running down a steep incline such as it must have in the cutting of the Grand Canyon.

As for preserving narrow towers I believe it should be clear from the pictures that those formations were not originally narrow towers but thick buttes that eroded down to towers since the buttes were formed.

and you're still operating under the misimpression that rock forms by drying.

Somewhere back in those discussions about all that it was proved by some official link or other that drying does indeed form rock in some cases, I wonder how to find that information. However, the formations do not have to have been actual rock at the stage of the receding of the Flood waters, simply compacted enough to retain their form, and that is not impossible considering the weight of such strata to such a depth [abe: The layers in the monuments represent the lower layers also found in the Grand Staircase, so we can suppose that the upper layers had originally been laid down in the monument area as well but eroded away/abe]. AND lithification, which is the cementing of the sedimetns by chemicals already in the rock, is facilitated by the wetness of the sediments that would of course have been trickling through the layers if they had all been laid down in the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 2:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Percy, posted 06-29-2014 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 488 of 533 (730572)
06-29-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Percy
06-28-2014 2:29 PM


The hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are limestone, which is much softer than sandstone or siltstone. The White Cliffs of Dover also erode at a rate of roughly 1 cm/year (which is same as 2 feet per hundred years).

Wouldn't that then be about 20,000 feet in a million years which should have totally wiped out the Dover cliffs many times over by now if they are that old?

The sandstone and siltstone in the buttes of Monument Valley erode at a far slower rate of around 15 cm per thousand years for sandstone,

That's about a foot per 2000 years or 1000 feet in 2 million years, or 10,000 feet in 20 millions years, sufficient I would think to wipe out a sandstone monument in the time normally allotted since their formation.

and maybe 5 cm per thousand years for siltstone.

So about 2 inches in a thousand years, or 2000 inches in a million years, being 166 feet in a million years or 1660 feet in ten million years. Are we getting close to total disintegration within the normally allotted time by OE reckoning? Yet all these formations are still standing, to quite a height too.

Correct my arithmetic if necessary of course.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 2:29 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:21 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 489 of 533 (730576)
06-29-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by herebedragons
06-28-2014 4:31 PM


River as it now is couldn't have created the canyon, which I do think is intuitively obvious but that won't do it for you will it.

Do you mean the river as it is NOW, or the river as it was before it was dammed and diverted?

Current average discharge is about 58 m3/sec.

Historic average discharge about 640 m3/sec (about 11 times current rate)

It had a historic peak flow of 2,800 m3/sec during the summer season (about 48 times current average)

Neither the river now nor the river before the dam would do it. You'd need water pouring in over all sides of the canyon for some period to cut it to the depth and breadth we now see.

Maximum recorded flow was 10,900 m3/sec in 1884 (about 188 times current average flow)

Roughly 90% of the Colorado's discharge comes from snowpack melt, mostly from the Rockies. I seem to remember there was supposed to be a couple ice ages during the time that the GC was being carved, which would have contributed significantly to the Colorado's flow. I don't think it unreasonable to estimate discharge rates to be double average historic flow. That would be a flow rate of 5,600 m3/sec, about 100 times current flow rates.

That would not be the "river as it is now" would it? Could a river 100 times larger than the current Colorado carve the GC in 5 million years?

Not the breadth of the canyon, no, the depth probably. Depends on how deep that would make the river and if it comes up very high on the walls of the canyon we're already talking Flood waters.

But cutting the canyon was not the original reference for the Colorado River. We're talking about the water I think would have scoured the plain around the monuments in Monument Valley and I don't know how we got off onto the Grand Canyon.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 4:31 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 10:40 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 490 of 533 (730578)
06-29-2014 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 4:50 PM


Well, show me who's doing the supposing: quote me someone who sets an age on an individual hoodoo. Then we'll look at how they did it and whether it contradicts the figure given for the rate of erosion. But if this person exists only in your head, this will diminish your triumph.

I did some arithmetic based on figures Percy gave for the erosion of the hoodoos and the monuments. Seems to me all the numbers he gave would have had all the formations mentioned wiped out totally well before the time estimated on the basis of Old Earth reckoning. You can tell me if my arithmetic is off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by jar, posted 06-29-2014 10:19 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 502 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 491 of 533 (730579)
06-29-2014 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:14 AM


what's missing?
What is the area and volume of the original Monument Valley and the area and volume of the remaining structures?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 492 of 533 (730580)
06-29-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by herebedragons
06-28-2014 4:59 PM


Anyway we're getting off the fact that massive erosion occurred after all the strata were in place rather than during their laying down, and that part is demonstrable despite all the weird ways it's getting obfuscated here, and that order of things, again, is evidence that the whole Old Earth scenario is a crock.

So, archaeological evidence suggests that the GC has been inhabited by humans for 4,000 years. Evidence for these civilizations is found in Redwall limestone caves, which is quite far down in the canyon.

Ancestral Pueblos moved into the area about 500BCE (about 2,500 years ago) and had established stable settlements by 500CE. The most accessible of these was built about 1185.

The first Europeans reached the GC in 1540, only 3,800 years after the flood.

Source

SO... how long DID it take the flood waters to carve the GC? 300 years? 1,800 years? As much as 3,800 years?

To carve the canyon? Oh not long at all, maybe a hundred years max but really probably much less. Unlike the area of the Monuments which are set in a huge plain, the water should have flowed very swiftly down through the break in the strata that eventually became the canyon, huge cataracts of water as the strata broke up and washed down the path thus created.

The Flood water receded over a period of about five months, dropping the sea level, though of course it could have been continuing to flow off the land for some time after that. But a hundred years should have been quite enough.

And a followup question ... where is all that sediment now?

I have that question too but I would think it's hiding in plain sight somewhere, from the Grand Canyon somewhere along the path of the Colorado to the Gulf of California, or IN the Gulf. I haven't been able to find much information about the Geology of Southern California. But you're good at finding that sort of stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 4:59 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 10:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 493 of 533 (730581)
06-29-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:10 AM


Not the breadth of the canyon, no, the depth probably.

So, if the Colorado carved the canyon, it should be 1 mile deep and only 2 miles wide?

But cutting the canyon was not the original reference for the Colorado River. We're talking about the water I think would have scoured the plain around the monuments in Monument Valley and I don't know how we got off onto the Grand Canyon.

Sorry, my bad. It may have been this comment that confused me ...

Faith writes:

River as it now is couldn't have created the canyon, which I do think is intuitively obvious but that won't do it for you will it.

I don't think anyone supposes the Colorado river carved the plains of Bryce Canyon or Monument valley. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the Colorado is supposed to have carved the GC, not the surrounding features.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:56 AM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 494 of 533 (730582)
06-29-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:24 AM


To carve the canyon? Oh not long at all, maybe a hundred years max but really probably much less.

Have you really thought about that??? 5.45 trillion cubic yards removed in 100 years???? That is 150 million cubic yards per day!!!

Park Statistics

I don't know ... is that really within the realm of reason???

I haven't been able to find much information about the Geology of Southern California. But you're good at finding that sort of stuff.

Yea, I'll try Googling it later.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 495 of 533 (730583)
06-29-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by herebedragons
06-28-2014 6:03 PM


The way I figure it, the hoodoos of Monument Valley must have been carved by runoff as the flood waters receded. Since the waters began receding on day 150 and the land was completely dry by day 371, this sets the upper limit of the amount of time it took to carve the area.

Maybe, maybe not. The land was completely dry where Noah was, and certainly exposed all over the world by that time, but that doesn't mean there weren't parts of the world where the water was still standing in basins, or still running in very large or broad rivers and that sort of thing before settling down to today's levels.

ABE: And by the way, the monuments in Monument Valley are not "hoodoos" -- those are at the top of the Grand Staircase in the Claron Formation which is quite a bit higher than Monument Valley. /ABE

So, the area was carved in less than 221 days.
Monument Valley is about 28.73 square miles and some hoodoos stand 1000 feet above the canyon floor. This amounts to 5.44 cubic miles of material that needs to be removed.

abe: NOT "hoodoos" HBD, you got me confused and I've answered for the carving of the hoodoos in the Claron rather than the monuments of Monument Valley, where I said the water left cliffs and then erosion carved them. In Monument Valley the water scoured off a plain around big chunks of standing strata, and then they too were subject to yearly erosion but now this whole subject is so confused I don't know how to straighten it out. /abe

OK, and in the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area also, a huge amount of material from above the Kaibab for thousands of square miles. But the enormous volume of water that would have done the removing would have been equal to the task, and the Old Earth assumption that it was removed incrementally over tens or hundreds of millions of years makes a lot less sense because you have huge PLAINS that were scoured off all over that area, the Kaibab and whatever the surface is in the Monument Valley area, sandstone I think somebody said. Bit by bit over any number of years, millions or billions or trillions, you are not going to get a scoured plain.

So we have 5.44 cubic miles of material to remove in 221 days. This converts to an erosive rate of 3.62x109 ft3 /day.

I'll take your word for it. Now calculate the volume of water that would have been draining off the land at the end of the Flood.

The hoodoos of Monument Valley must have been carved from Sept, 2348 BCE until March, 2347 BCE at the rate of 3.62x109 ft3 /day.

What? The hoodoos were not CARVED by the Flood, they weren't carved until after the Flood abated and then slowly by erosion. The area was cliffs at that time, that's what the Flood would have left, then there was uplift, which probably occurred after the Flood, which may have begun the vertical cracks that yearly erosion then shaped into the hoodoos since then.

ABE: This is where I answered for the hoodoos instead of the monuments. to answer for the monuments they would have been large chunks of strata at that time, not carved into their current shapes yet, but yes I figure the water scoured off the plain around them. /abe.

quote me someone who sets an age on an individual hoodoo

** Faith can quote me as a source for the age of the hoodoos and the rate of erosion required to produce them.

But you have it all wrong about the hoodoos. Please see Percy's estimates and my responses and let's try to get this all coordinated.

But if this person exists only in your head

I'm real, I assure you.

I'm afraid I didn't get what Dr. A meant about some person, and still don't.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 6:03 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 12:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
343536Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017