Summations Only

quote:

---

As far as I can tell nobody is addressing the "other line of evidence" argument about the rate of erosion of various formations such as the hoodoos of Bryce canyon, the monuments of Monument Valley, and the Grand Canyon itself, the argument being that if they've been in existence for millions of years they all should be eroded down to dust by now, but the actual erosion as judged by the piles of it at the base of each formation, is nowhere near, NOWHERE near such an age

---

As I have pointed out - and you replied to most of my posts.You greatly underestimate the amount of erosion by just looking at the loose material that is present.You greatly overestimate the amount of erosion expected by starting it from the time when the sediment was deposited, instead of the - much later - time it was exposed to erosion.Your only measure of the rate of erosion is not only for a soft rock, it also isn’t at all obvious how it can be applied to other circumstances.Even then you don’t have anything like the solid numbers need to show that there is a problem.And I can add that you certainly haven’t even shown that the amount of erosion is consistent with your timescale. There are good reasons to think that it isn’tThis isn’t a line of evidence, it’s a wild guess.

quote:

---

However, I suppose your response is about the best anyone could come up with anyway, figuring I would misestimate the amount of erosion by millions of years.

---

Aside from the fact that is only a part of my response - and not the only fatal error in your argument - that is exactly what you did do.

quote:

---

All the formations wouldn't erode at the same rate but the differences can't be as huge as you would like them to be. If not two to four feet, make it six inches in a century and Monument Valley would be dust in less than 100,000 years.

---

The issue, of course, is not how long it would take to remove the remaining material but how long it took to remove the material that has already gone.May I suggest that you would find this much less stressful if you took the time to avoid obvious errors.

quote:

---

Which is exactly what I've done. If the rate of erosion means a formation would be gone in 100,000 years that means it would ALREADY be gone many times over if it is supposedly millions of years old.

---

Obviously that is exactly what you haven’t done. As I said you need to look at the amount of material that has actually be removed, not guess a5 how long it would take to remove what’s left.

quote:

---

I'm figuring how long it WOULD HAVE TAKEN to reduce a formation to dust and it's a lot less than even one million years and of course I'm being as generous as I can to make the point.

---

No you are not working out how long it would have taken. In every case the amount of material that has already been removed is vastly greater than the amount left - and you are only looking at the time taken to remove the comparatively tiny bit left. Even then you are only guessing.Now are you going to go on making silly mistake after silly mistake ? It doesn’t help your case or do anything more than waste my time pointing out your ridiculous errors.

quote:

---

Well, I don't think all that much has been removed, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that if as much as you think had been removed the hoodoos and the monuments would originally have been a hundred times their current height.

---

Why do you assume I am talking about height ? What about all the material that used to be around the hoodoos in Bryce Canyon or the buttes of Monument Valley?
Those things are carved out of solid rock and a lot of it had to go.

quote:

---

But in any case I'm calculating from a rate of erosion loosely based on the rate given for the hoodoos, and not the pile of eroded material, so your objection is just your own wishful thinking as usua

---

I would accuse you of lying but I know you can’t remember your past posts. You have indeed argued based on the visible debris rather than the loss of height. And you certainly didn’t do a calculation for Monument Valley. Guessing is not calculating.

quote:

---

What would happen to you if you suddenly had to recognize that the Flood was real and the Bible was therefore true and the Bible's God is watching you right now? I wonder.

---

Speculating in what I would do if I were struck with insanity is hardly productive for either of us. It would be better to ask what would happen to you if you saw through your crazy delusions ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The post you were replying to was about height so if you weren't talking about height you should have been.

---

If you make a silly mistake I don’t have to agree with it,

quote:

---

I was not talking about the amount of erosion so I don't know why you were.

---

Because it is obviously the right thing to talk about. As I have already explained the loss of height in the hoodoos is not easily transferable to other situations, being dependent on the hoodoo shape.

quote:

---

Yes a few times I said I judged the timing from that debris pile but not in that post and all I did was make a guess about it.

---

But you didn’t offer any alternative until you came up with the height, and that is obviously wrong.

quote:

---

About the height I made a rough calculation based on an estimate of the rate of erosion. And anyway, if the height is reduced at some particular rate that would include the overall erosion anyway in the end.

---

No, you didn’t make any calculation. You just assumed that your estimated rate would be sufficient to level Monument Valley in 100,000 years. And that turns out to be wrong. Your estimated rate may well be wrong too, since that is little more than a guess.Since the height loss only applies to areas undergoing net erosion and because the hoodoo rate is well above that to be expected in a relatively level environment for reasons already discussed it doesn’t seem you have much of a point even there.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So if one formation dates to, say, the Cretaceous period which dates from 145 mya to 65 mya but its rate of erosion would have disintegrated it within thousands of years, or even give it ten million if you want, it simply is not as old as they say it is, and if it isn't that old neither is the Cretaceous period

---

Do you think you could stop repeating the same silly mistakes ?Erosion isn’t magic. It won’t happen unless the rock is exposed. If a formation dates to the Cretaceous period then it must have been buried deeply to be lithified and it won’t start eroding until it is exposed again. The date that the sediment was deposited is no real help to you at all.

quote:

---

The most recent estimate for the age of the cutting of the Grand Canyon is five million years. Since on that cross section it appears to have been cut at the same time the Grand Staircase was formed, which includes Bryce Canyon with its hoodoos, then the hoodoos should also have five million years of exposure.

---

Please explain your reasoning.

quote:

---

Would the rate of erosion come anywhere near that?

---

I really don’t know. The rate of erosion is obviously dependent on climatic variations - so I rather doubt it would be constant over millions of years. We have a lot of erosion needed to explain the existence of the hoodoos, too.Again, if you want to make an argument you need to do the work.

quote:

---

The Kaibab Uplift appears on the cross section to have been the main cause of the massive erosion over that entire area. It is all uplifted from north to south toward the Grand Canyon

---

Yet the Claron formation sits well above strata exposed at the Grand Canyon. It seems rather likely that that area has seen much less erosion.

quote:

---

The Claron is just a tiny remnant of its former self, having been eroded down to one of the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, which were all formed at the same time as the Grand Canyon in the same upheaval that caused the Kaibab Uplift

---

Perhaps it is a tiny remnant. Yet the fact it is present at all supports my point. There are about a dozen more formations, by my count, below it which are not present at the Grand Canyon. That’s far more than a tiny remnant

quote:

---

That is correct. All those from the Kaibab up to the Claron are part of the Grand Staircase but my point is that the erosion of the entire area from the staircase to the canyon occurred as a result of the Kaibab Uplift, in conjunction with the Hurricane Fault and the uplift there, but all at the same time.

---

I know what your claim is. I was pointing out that the evidence suggested far less erosion at that end of the Grand Staircase, which calls your claim into question.If all you can do is to try to ignore most of the evidence and then restate your assertion you don’t have much of an answer to that.

quote:

---

"Far less erosion" ??? You're talking about the cliffs of the Grand Staircase:??:?

---

And that is just ignoring the point. There are a dozen or more strata at that end of the Grand Staircase that are absent at the other end. This suggests that there was far less erosion at that end.

quote:

---

Oh, OK, and what is the point of that?

---

That that end wasn’t exposed to as much erosion, and therefore likely for a shorter time.

quote:

---

I think it was just that the strata above the Grand Canyon were directly in line with the Kaibab Uplift while those to the north were only exposed to the tilting of the whole area.

---

That doesn’t seem to make any sense. Why would that mean those strata - at least those that were once present - would now be absent at the Grand Canyon end.

quote:

---

Since you mention an age of five million years for the Grand Canyon, this is the time to mention something I've been holding back that affects the width of the Grand Canyon. As you hopefully know by now, the Colorado river was never as wide as the canyon in most places. The average width of the canyon is about 10 miles, but it is 18 miles at its widest point and only 1800 feet at its narrowest (Marble Canyon, which marks the beginning of the Grand Canyon). The width of the canyon is caused by slope retreat, which began once the river began to incise into the landscape. What caused the variable width of the canyon, and why isn't it approximately the same width throughout its length?

---

Of course Faith is aware of it. She used it to argue that the Colorado river could not have cut the Grand Canyon. The contradiction between arguing that the Grand Canyon is both too wide and too narrow amused me.