Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 9:38 AM
340 online now:
jar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,548 Year: 29,154/21,208 Month: 1,220/1,847 Week: 143/452 Day: 17/126 Hour: 7/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 151 of 224 (820916)
09-29-2017 12:05 AM


As long as we are talking about erosion and mountains going to the sea, here is what happened to El Capitan today.

http://www.latimes.com/...kfall-yosemite-20170928-story.html

Does anyone doubt the effects of erosion?


  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 152 of 224 (820918)
09-29-2017 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by edge
09-28-2017 11:45 PM


Ruby Mountains side note
Interestingly enough, the Nevada mountain ranges are mostly tilt blocks similar to the GC Supergroup strata of the Grand Canyon.

The Ruby Mountains are actually much more than your common variety of basin and range fault block mountains (also much prettier - See photos at link below).

quote:
The Ruby Mountains are part of the Basin and Range Province that formed as a result of extension of the North American plate. Normal faults on the eastern and western flanks of the range separate it from the basins on either side of it. The Ruby Mountains are an example of a metamorphic core complex, and middle and lower crustal rocks have been exhumed to the surface in the footwall of a large detachment fault. A mylonitic shear zone can be traced along the fault on the western margin of the Ruby Mountains, marking the contact between the igneous and metamorphic rocks in the core complex and the undeformed sedimentary rocks around it.

Source

The Rubies are more along the lines of being a less eroded version of the GC Supergroup AND the Vishnu Schist complex. Much younger also.

Amazing what THE FLOOD was capable of doing.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak pseudoHTML effort.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 11:45 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 12:59 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 153 of 224 (820919)
09-29-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 12:39 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
The Ruby Mountains are actually much more than your common variety of basin and range fault block mountains (also much prettier - See photos at link below).

As sheared up as it is, the Ruby Range has to be eroding more rapidly than similar mountain ranges. One gets a strange feeling about the land forms as you go up Lamoille Canyon, to me it's kind of glacial, but not ...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 12:39 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 1:22 AM edge has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 154 of 224 (820920)
09-29-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by edge
09-29-2017 12:59 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
One gets a strange feeling about the land forms as you go up Lamoille Canyon, to me it's kind of glacial, but not ...

There is a substantial glacial modification there. There is a small moraine at the end of a side valley at the campground area and a lot of cirque lakes at the heads of other valleys. Probably some hanging side valleys also.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 12:59 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 9:06 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26790
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 224 (820921)
09-29-2017 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by edge
09-28-2017 11:45 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Interestingly enough, the Nevada mountain ranges are mostly tilt blocks similar to the GC Supergroup strata of the Grand Canyon. The deformed rocks are preserved but are certainly planed off to some base level in most ancient mountain ranges.

This surface is still somewhat irregular in the GC since the harder quartzites have not been completely planed off and form the 'monadnocks' that we have been discussing.

In my scenario most of the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood, just as in my scenario the Great Unconformity was also pushed up. And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored but it is the main evidence that the strata were already in place when the GU was formed. That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time. And all of this of course proves that the Geo Time Scale is false. Then of course if you add the flat flat strata with their tight tight contacts you have evidence of rapid deposition. Flood, not vast ages of time.

One thing that I find curious in this discussion is the large number of flat landscapes such as the pediments and valley fill deposits in the Ruby Range image.

One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata. This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.

You even emphasize this big joke when you say:

If you look at the effects of seashore erosion you will see that the ultimate surface is pretty flat. Wave erosion is ferocious.

"Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:

The vertical surface has been severely eroded leaving the original strata clearly visible in their pristine horizontality with their very tight contacts. This is a location where the tectonic upheaval didn't twist the strata for some reason, but something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material to leave the mountain there.

Like waterfalls and volcanoes, mountain ranges are just temporary features on the surface of the earth. This will always be the case until plate tectonics stops and there is no more erosion. It will be a dead planet.

There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out. The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet. Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.

The amount of erosion that can be seen on some formations such as the hoodoos of the Southwest has to have occurred since their formation in the Flood, and what that amount of erosion shows is a few thousand years' worth. Some of the more delicate formations in that area have eroded to the point of breaking and falling apart, but that would happen in a few thousand years, not millions. And that would of course be the amount of erosion that's happened to the Ruby Mountains and all other formations since they all originated either in the Flood or by the tectonic activity afterward.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 11:45 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 2:31 AM Faith has responded
 Message 165 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 9:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 4:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26790
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 156 of 224 (820922)
09-29-2017 1:37 AM


suggestion
I wonder if it would be possible to present one argument at a time. I'll never get to the posts here, and it's still true that I don't feel like even acknowledging the existence of some of the posters, but if one argument out of all the different posts could be isolated I could deal with that a lot better than the pile-on here. Perhaps Moose could be assigned to choose the argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 4:33 PM Faith has responded
 Message 171 by jar, posted 09-29-2017 5:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 157 of 224 (820925)
09-29-2017 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:

And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored but it is the main evidence that the strata were already in place when the GU was formed.

The overlying strata do not follow the tilt of the Supergroup. That is one of the evidences that the tilt occurred before they were deposited.

I assume that you are referring to what you call the "mounding" - but even then the question remains, specially as the "mounding" would be a later event anyway.

quote:

That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time.

It doesn't mean that the monadnocks were pushed up at all. The evidence that should be present if that occurred is completely missing. And even if you assume that it happened you have no connection between it and the "mounding"

quote:

One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata. This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.

Of course, even if you are correct that would only apply to terrestrial deposits, and not all of those. So, I suggest that you substantiate your accusation. Which strata are held to have been deposited in similar circumstances and are they really too flat ?

And then you can put yourself in our shoes, faced with a constant stream of falsehoods from you - repeated even after they are shown to be false. Being called "stupid" for telling the truth. Being accused of making personal attacks for pointing out the fact that you often avoid contrary evidence. How do you think that makes us feel?

quote:

"Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:

Of course, distance is important - you won't see small deviations from flatness on that photograph. So is the original environment and you don't mention that either.

Until you actually deal with the relevant facts - the actual flatness, and the expected flatness you don't really have an argument.

quote:

There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out. The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet. Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.

And so we come back to one of the original arguments for an Old Earth. The quantity of erosion. However, since we have good evidence for the erosion and none for a young Earth your argument fails. You're pretty much begging the question by asssuming you are right at the start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26790
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 158 of 224 (820926)
09-29-2017 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
09-29-2017 2:31 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata olf the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.

And the amount of erosion we see in the hoodoos and all the formations of the American Southwest counts back a few thousand years, not millions.

Deceivers galore on this subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 2:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 3:22 AM Faith has responded
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 09-29-2017 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 8:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 159 of 224 (820927)
09-29-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
09-29-2017 2:56 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:

The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata olf the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.

The strata of the stratigraphic columns are many and varied. Before accusing me of deception you need to identify which of the strata are said to be "formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain" and show that they are not.

quote:

And the amount of erosion we see in the hoodoos and all the formations of the American Southwest counts back a few thousand years, not millions.

Really ? Please substantiate this claim. Note that erosion depends on environmental conditions, as well as the hardness - and form - of the rock. Also, that when Lyell came up with the argument he was hardly looking at the American Southwest.
(Although I personally think that the Grand Canyon is an excellent counter-example)

quote:

Deceivers galore on this subject.

Then you had better substantiate your accusations. Because if you don't we will know that you are the deceiver.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:43 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26790
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 160 of 224 (820930)
09-29-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by PaulK
09-29-2017 3:22 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
You just proved the futility of this whole debate, not that it's anything new, it's par for the course and I'm an idiot for continuing in it.

The strata are NOT different in form, so the idea that I need to differentiate between particular ones claimed to be produced by sediments falling on the plain from some formed some other way is just more of the same kind of deceit. Edge did not identify any particular strata, he just implied that strata can be formed that way, or even on a sea shore, and there are NO strata that could POSSIBLY be formed that way, and yes it's OBVIOUS. If you can't see it you must be blinded by bias.

The rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known, you can go find it yourself though it's been posted somewhere here too, and the rate is consistent with a few thousand years, certainly not millions. Same with all the formations of the American Southwest, which can be judged by the erosion at their base. Since the original size of the hoodoos can also be easily calculated there is also that to confirm the time factor.

Substantiate it yourself. This debate is a sham.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:08 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 9:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 161 of 224 (820935)
09-29-2017 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:43 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:

You just proved the futility of this whole debate, not that it's anything new, it's par for the course and I'm an idiot for continuing in it.

In other words debate is "futile" unless you are allowed to make unsubstantiated accusations against your opponents. Nice coming from someone who continually complains about "personal attacks" whenever any criticism comes their way.

quote:

The strata are NOT different in form,

It's certainly not true that all strata are flat, with no sign of erosion. Consider the monadnocks, or the channel being used as examples.

quote:

the idea that I need to differentiate between particular ones claimed to be produced by sediments falling on the plain from some formed some other way is just more of the same kind of deceit.

Certainly it is not. Strata are composed of differing materials, have differing levels of flatness, greatly differing extents.

quote:

Edge did not identify any particular strata, he just implied that strata can be formed that way, or even on a sea shore, and there are NO strata that could POSSIBLY be formed that way, and yes it's OBVIOUS. If you can't see it you must be blinded by bias.

We know that strata do form on a sea shore and that they include eroded material (sand) so it is hard to see what your objection is.

quote:

The rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known, you can go find it yourself though it's been posted somewhere here too, and the rate is consistent with a few thousand years, certainly not millions

And it doesn't matter. You can't prove a universal from a single example (and it is not clear that you are right - how long did it take for the hoodoos to form in the first place - that is a lot of erosion, how much height has been lost ?)

quote:

Substantiate it yourself. This debate is a sham.

By which you mean that you are losing because this debate is not a sham. If we were to unquestionably believe your every claim, if we have to do the work of supporting your points, this debate would truly be a sham. And yet that is exactly what you seem to be demanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26790
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 162 of 224 (820943)
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers. Those forming now are not connected to the Stratigraphic Column in any way and I do consider it some kind of deceit to try to claim they are when they do not occur in the right places, they are not large enough, they are nothing like those in the Stratigraphic Column. I'm sick of arguing this. Yes it IS obvious and I've utterly lost patience with the ridiculous tall tales being palmed off as evidence of the column's continuation.

For anyone to look at the picture of the stratified mountainside I posted and think those strata could possibly have been formed by slow sedimentation on a plain like the one in the picture of the Ruby Mountains, or on a sloping seashore either, is another case of deceit, perhaps self-deception but the idea is so OBVIOUSLY absurd there is no point in wasting my time producing some kind of proof. The debate is a sham. To be honestly convinced of such ideas would mean being so self-deceived there is no point in talking to such a person.

And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition. I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it. Sorry, I can't do it, I'm not up to it, and again it's OBVIOUS that that degree of erosion did not take millions of years, or even a hundred thousand. The expansion and contraction of the rock with seasonal temperature changes causes grains to fall off, forming the hoodoo shape. The same occurs with all the formations of the American Southwest. That rate of erosion alone shows that the strata of which they are composed was laid down just a few thousand years ago, supporting the Flood, not the Geological Time Scale.

The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood. And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points. So suspend me already, it would be a blessing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 8:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 166 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 9:29 AM Faith has responded
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2017 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 09-30-2017 11:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 163 of 224 (820945)
09-29-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
quote:

The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers

Wrong. There isn't even a "the stratigraphic column" except perhaps as an abstraction combining the findings of many local stratigraphic columns.

I won't address the point about the strata you posted until I have actual information on what they are. Obviously you have to deal with the actual claims about how they were deposited and even you don't seem to know about that.

quote:

And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition. I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it.

The current rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known. How to apply that to the erosion forming them without far more information certainly is not. If you want to claim that the present state was arrived it in only a few thousand years then obviously you have to address that, not the current rate at which they are disappearing. This is basic stuff, Faith.

quote:

Sorry, I can't do it, I'm not up to it, and again it's OBVIOUS that that degree of erosion did not take millions of years, or even a hundred thousand

If it took ten thousand years your view is in deep trouble. And as I keep pointing out you can't prove that a few thousand years is enough to account for all erosion just from a single example. It's a ridiculous fallacy.

quote:

The expansion and contraction of the rock with seasonal temperature changes causes grains to fall off, forming the hoodoo shape. The same occurs with all the formations of the American Southwest. That rate of erosion alone shows that the strata of which they are composed was laid down just a few thousand years ago, supporting the Flood, not the Geological Time Scale.

Wrong, by my understanding Bryce Canyon is somewhat special, second you haven't made a valid estimate of the time required for anything, third all you could get from that is the time the erosion of those rocks started. It wouldn't and couldn't prove the Flood at all.

quote:

The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood

You say that, but you haven't even really addressed the topic of this thread yet.

quote:

And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points.

You know, if all you can come up with is idiotic objections then maybe you should admit defeat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 8:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 164 of 224 (820946)
09-29-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 1:22 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
There is a substantial glacial modification there. There is a small moraine at the end of a side valley at the campground area and a lot of cirque lakes at the heads of other valleys. Probably some hanging side valleys also.

Oh, it's definitely glaciated, and relatively recently, IIRC. The thing is that the bedrock is so tectonized that some of the common glacial features look different from the typical Rocky Mountain glacial valleys that we usually see in images. It's an interesting topic.

I think the pertinent point is that the mountain range will erode away, and perhaps quite rapidly in geological terms.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 1:22 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 165 of 224 (820947)
09-29-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
In my scenario most of the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood, just as in my scenario the Great Unconformity was also pushed up. And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored but it is the main evidence that the strata were already in place when the GU was formed. That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time. And all of this of course proves that the Geo Time Scale is false. Then of course if you add the flat flat strata with their tight tight contacts you have evidence of rapid deposition. Flood, not vast ages of time.

That's a nice story, but you have given us no evidence. For instance, if the quartzite strata were thrust up into the overlying Cambrian rocks, then there should be some indication of this.

One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata.

Well, the point is that this is an unconformity and it is quite flat compared to the mountain ranges that you want us to show you in the geological record.

This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.

You even emphasize this big joke when you say:

Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:

The vertical surface has been severely eroded leaving the original strata clearly visible in their pristine horizontality with their very tight contacts. This is a location where the tectonic upheaval didn't twist the strata for some reason, but something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material to leave the mountain there.


I don't remember calling those bedding planes unconformities, certainly not erosional or angular unconformities.

There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out. The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet.

Again, this is just an assertion on your part. First of all, there is a lot of time and secondly erosion is relatively rapid compared to deposition and orogeny.

Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.

Another unsupported assertion.

The amount of erosion that can be seen on some formations such as the hoodoos of the Southwest has to have occurred since their formation in the Flood, and what that amount of erosion shows is a few thousand years' worth.

Thank you for making my point that erosion can be rapid.

Some of the more delicate formations in that area have eroded to the point of breaking and falling apart, but that would happen in a few thousand years, not millions. And that would of course be the amount of erosion that's happened to the Ruby Mountains and all other formations since they all originated either in the Flood or by the tectonic activity afterward.

As I have explained, I believe that the Rubys are eroding more rapidly than most mountain ranges and I have explained why. Do you understand that the hoodoos are very recent in age and composed of relatively soft sedimentary and volcanic rocks?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017