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.

Yes Paul I remember our exchange, I was hoping someone from the recent barrage of posts might have something different to say, especially edge but he seems to be avoiding the subject.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. 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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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 usual. 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.

And there is a girl in the reflection of the truck in the window mural but no girl in the truck itself. It's really an amazing amazing art composition where you can spend hours and yet never see all of it.BUT...why is that important to this thread?It's very important because while from a distance you see somethings it is only when you actually look at the details you notice the whole corner is not what it seems, the building is a wall, the bricks each have names and stories on them and also the discrepancies like the girl in the reflection that is not in the truck itself.Just as in Faith's fantasy, when you look closely at reality the straight flat lines are not straight flat lines, nowhere is there evidence of some world wide flood during the time humans existed and there are wind blown dunes that were turned to stone.Faith see the statue as reality and never sees the reality itself.

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.

Replying to several of your messages...Replying to your Message 1097 to Jar: The presence of dinosaur tracks and fossils and the nature of the crossbedding of sand says this was a land dune environment. You mean your argument that parts of the Navajo didn't form in the geologic column? You gave up that argument in your Message 1113.Replying to your Message 1099 to Jar: The Wave was a land-based dune environment. The same kind of sand crossbedding found in The Wave like this: Can be found in modern deserts like this (image from Taq's Message 792: No water added. You provided a link to this image once before, and I responded with a better image that doesn't have the word "Stock" imprinted all over it. Here it is again: We know that the Navajo Formation is a layer of crossbedded sandstone, and we know in some places it's a layer in mesas and in other places it's at ground level where it can be closely examined and in other places it exists as isolated outcrops. What point are you trying to make with this image?Replying to your Message 1104 to Jar: The two images of crossbedding that appear just above show crossbedded sandstone in the Navajo Formation and crossbedded sand in a modern desert. What differences between the two images tell you that the Navajo was not windblown sand while the modern desert is?Replying to your Message 1112 to Edge: Same question as just before. Look at the two crossbedding images that appear just above. What differences tell you that the Navajo was not windblown sand while the modern desert is? What is it about The Wave that leads you to believe they are deformed strata? Have you considered the possibility that in that spot the Navajo Formation has been sculpted by the elements into unusual shapes. As described by Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Initially, infrequent runoff eroded these troughs along joints within the Navajo Sandstone. After their formation, the drainage basin, which fed rainwater to these troughs, shrank to the point that the runoff became insufficient to contribute to the cutting of these troughs. As a result, the troughs are now almost exclusively eroded by wind, as indicated by the orientation of erosional steps and risers cut into the sandstone along their steep walls. These erosional steps and risers are oriented relative to the predominant direction of the wind as it is now naturally funneled into and through these troughs.

---

That is, this is just a part of the normal Navajo Formation strata that in this part of the Coyote Buttes happens to be accessible to close-up viewing via a good hike and that through erosion by rainwater and later wind has been eroded into stunningly beautiful contours and shapes. As I said in an earlier message, all contacts between layers are "extremely tight." The great pressure from layers above guarantees that there can be no gaps, nooks or crannies. What do you imagine that a non-tight boundary between layers would look like? Does "knife-edge tight" mean something different to you than it does to me? Are you perhaps trying to say that the transition from the layer below to the one above is sudden? If that's all you're trying to say then I'd answer, "Yes, of course, that's what happens at a disconformity." I couldn't find any closeup images showing the gradational transition between the Navajo and Kayenta, but "gradational" means that the transition is a gradual series of small steps. As Wikipedia describes it:

quote:

---

Likewise, the contact between the Kayenta and the Navajo in places seems to be gradational, but generally a thin jumbled mass of sandstone and shales, chunks of shale and limestone, mud balls, and concretions of lime and iron, lies at the base of the fine-grained, cross bedded Navajo. Mud cracks, a few ripple marks, and incipient drainage channels were observed in the topmost bed of the Kayenta on Red Rock Plateau; and in west Glen Canyon, wide sand-filled cracks appear at the horizon. These features indicate that, in places at least, the Wingate and Kayenta were exposed to erosion before their overlying geologic formations were deposited, are it may be that the range in thickness of the Kayenta thus in part (is) accounted for.

---

This quote crams a lot into few words, but summarizing the important parts, in places the transition from the Kayenta to the overlying Navajo is gradational, meaning the Kayenta gradually gives way to the Navajo in a series of small steps. The top of the Kayenta was exposed to erosion ("Mud cracks, a few ripple marks, and incipient drainage channels") and energetic transport ("jumbled mass of sandstone and shales, chunks of shale and limestone, mud balls, and concretions of lime and iron"). This could only happen on land.--Percy

As I said, the "pile of eroded material" that you need to look at is the Colorado River delta in the Gulf of California.What you're doing is analogous to looking at the few loose crumbs that are left behind when a basement is dug and ignoring the tons of material that were hauled away.

You implied that your numbers falsified the old age of the earth. Obviously, geologists aren't using the same calculation as you are.But even if the hoodoos did erode at the rate you claim, that has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

The post you were replying to was about height so if you weren't talking about height you should have been. I was not talking about the amount of erosion so I don't know why you were.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. 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.Edited by Faith, : 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.