It seems we have two thoughts going:
1. The river was always there and the mountain ranges decided to stop at the river bed, then continue on the other side (assuming the river eroded them down as they rose).
2. The mountains were there first and then the river cuts through the hard rock at 90 d. without a blink.
Neither of those is an accurate summary of the views that have been presented to you. You should read more carefully before replying.
So which was first, the river or the mountains? (this logic would also apply to the thousands of rivers in the world that do the exact same thing).
In the case of the Susquehanna, it appears to have been the river.
If the rivers were always present before mountain ranges, then were they as large assuming the world was relatively flat?
Why would we assume that the rest of the world was relatively flat?
To say that a river existed before a
particular mountain range is not to say that this river existed at a time when there were no mountains anywhere.
Furthermore if the rivers were always in place ignoring mountain building, then why do they rise with the landscape of the mountains ...
They don't.
Am I actually going to have to explain to a creationist that water flows downhill? In so many words?
I think I am.
Water flows downhill.
The Susquehanna flows
between mountains, it doesn't flow
up mountains. There is no point whatsoever at which it "rises with the landscape".
Assume, just for one moment, that plate tectonics had little to do with mountain building. Then what other major force could there have been to create them?
Why do you want to know?
This is like asking: "Assume, just for a moment, that gravity doesn't exist. Then what other force could make things fall when you drop them?"
I dunno ... magic pixies?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
