Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

[Mr-Vaquero]

Hello,
Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are 2 ways to look at Earth's geologic history.

Uniformitarianism suggests for example that surface features we see on Earth are caused by long term uniform processes such as weathering or plate tectonics.

Catastrophism suggests that features on Earth can be explained by sudden, short events. Such as Noah's flood or a meteorite impact.

So, what theory do you like best and why?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #70]

There is no such thing as Creation Science.

I agree ... it is an oxymoron.

Nope, are you claiming that ore of Uranium and thorium does not give off radiation?

Just the opposite, and from stable isotopes. In post 66 you said this:

"It is radioactive elements (elements that do not have stable isotopes) that produce the heat in the Earth."

Uranium-238 and thorium 232 are the main, stable isotopes of those elements. Potassium-40 is 0.012% relative to total K, but still plays a significant role in heat generation in the mantle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium ... c_heat.svg

[The Barbarian]

MODIFICATION OF INCISED MEANDERS BY FLOODS
ABSTRACT
The structurally controlled meanders of Coy Glen were modified in 1935 by a flood of short duration but unusual volume and force. Little change had taken place in the gorge since the original study in 1929, but after the flood it was found that the meander spurs had been truncated and other significant changes had occurred. As slow incision, structurally controlled, formed the spurs, their modification in a single flood is definite evidence that such erosion is extraordinary.

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
1. Little change had taken place in the gorge.

But the meanders formed slowly as they did in the Grand Canyon. You claimed that floods formed them but as you see, it was slow erosion over a long period of time.

Exactly like we see happening in Grand Canyon today. What we see in the Canyon today is a widening of the Canyon, not a deepening.

Actually, the Colorado River continues to cut downward into the canyon. This is why it has a deep, narrow valley, unlike old rivers that have not been uploaded; such rivers have broad valleys.

The problem that deep time has with this is answering the question. Where did the water come from? So yes floodwaters can and did create these incised meanders according to these scientists.

But you can't provide us with a quote showing that they did? Why is that?

2. their modification in a single flood is definite evidence that such erosion is extraordinary.

Yes, they say that a sudden flood can modify meanders, but they don't say that a flood can form meanders.

The report you cited points out that incised meanders are formed slowly.
As slow incision, structurally controlled, formed the spurs
Did you not read it?

Did you not read your own quote that you highlighted?

It doesn't say that sudden flood can form meanders.

Remember young streams don't meander. Colorado River is an old stream that has been uplifted and rejuvenated.

In fact, the Colorado river has cut through all sort of rock of varying hardness. If it didn't, then when it got to that layer, it would have stopped eroding away material. But as you have seen, it cuts down through very hard rock.
Being rejuvenated, the river is trapped in its bed and cuts downward with little erosion outward. This is why young and rejuvenated rivers have deep v-shaped valleys.

Or a channel can be deepened and widened all at the same time by flood action.

What a flood can't do, is form meanders. As the paper you cited says, those form slowly. Read it again:
MODIFICATION OF INCISED MEANDERS BY FLOODS
ABSTRACT
The structurally controlled meanders of Coy Glen were modified in 1935 by a flood of short duration but unusual volume and force. Little change had taken place in the gorge since the original study in 1929, but after the flood it was found that the meander spurs had been truncated and other significant changes had occurred. As slow incision, structurally controlled, formed the spurs, their modification in a single flood is definite evidence that such erosion is extraordinary.
[/quote]

In fact, the Colorado river has cut through all sort of rock of varying hardness. If it didn't, then when it got to that layer, it would have stopped eroding away material. But as you have seen, it cuts down through very hard rock.
Being rejuvenated, the river is trapped in its bed and cuts downward with little erosion outward. This is why young and rejuvenated rivers have deep v-shaped valleys.

It appears you are a proponent of John Wesley Powell's theory of the antecedent river theory.

I'm just showing you that river meanders form slowly, not by floods. As the paper you cited says. If you don't agree with geologists, why did you cite a paper by geologists?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #67]

Hmmm ... let's check the math out on this. If the uplift is 2.5 cm/year (0.025 m/yr) and erosion is 0.003 m/year, you'd have a net movement rate of 0.025 - 0.003 = 0.022 m/yr (a positive number). In 60 million years that would be a net uplift of 1.32e6 m = 1,320 km!. Something is grossly out, obviously but using your numbers the uplift rate is 8.3x the erosion rate, so Everest would not be eroded away and instead would tower over everything else on Earth.

I am not saying that Mt. Everest should not be there. I am saying that there are Marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and they should not be there because of the erosion rate of Everest should have eroded them away long ago.

Average width of a continental shelf is about 40 miles, and there were two of them, one for Asia, one for India. So about 129 linear km of continental shelf (full of marine fossils) being pushed up to replace the eroded material. The average height of the Himalayas is about 6km.
https://sage-advices.com/what-is-the-av ... s-class-9/

So if your numbers are right, only about 120km have been eroded away. I don't see a problem.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #68]

Because the mass of a continental shelf is much higher than that. Average width of a continental shelf is about 40 miles, and there were two of them, one for Asia, one for India. So about 129 linear km of continental shelf (full of marine fossils) being pushed up to replace the eroded material. The average height of the Himalayas is about 6km.
https://sage-advices.com/what-is-the-av ... s-class-9/

So if your numbers are right, only about 120km have been eroded away. I don't see a problem.

40 Miles!!! What. 40 km. maybe is the continental crust.

The Earth is covered by two kinds of crust — continental and oceanic. The thinner oceanic crust is normally a little more than four miles thick, while the thicker continental crust is often as much as 25 miles thick. Continental crust is also much less dense than its oceanic counterpart. https://news.yale.edu/2022/06/30/thin-c ... ounterpart.

That would be 80 linear km not 129 km. And that is a problem.

I don't see what that has to do with drumlins. Are you denying that they were laid down by glaciers?

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that deep-time theories have no mechanism to produce an ice age.

No. Thermodynamics requires heat to move from hotter material to colder material. So unless the crust was hotter than the mantle (about 1000 degrees C at the top) heat would flow from the mantle to the crust. So that would heat the seas, which have a much lower mass than the crust itself; they would boil under those conditions.

What? That is not what happens now. Heat is generated in the asthenosphere right today. And you cannot make this claim because there are still mysteries in plate tectonic theory.

Although we don't fully understand the mechanism of what happened next, it's clear that the Indian continent began to be driven horizontally beneath Tibet like a giant wedge, forcing Tibet upwards. Tibet, meanwhile, is behaving like a giant roadblock that prevents the Himalaya from moving northward. Under the peaks and under most of Tibet the Indian plate is apparently gliding along almost frictionlessly. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html

Because the mass of a continental shelf is much higher than that. Average width of a continental shelf is about 40 miles, and there were two of them, one for Asia, one for India. So about 129 linear km of continental shelf (full of marine fossils) being pushed up to replace the eroded material. The average height of the Himalayas is about 6km.
https://sage-advices.com/what-is-the-av ... s-class-9/

So if your numbers are right, only about 120km have been eroded away. I don't see a problem.

40 Miles!!! What. 40 km. maybe is the continental crust.

The Earth is covered by two kinds of crust — continental and oceanic. The thinner oceanic crust is normally a little more than four miles thick, while the thicker continental crust is often as much as 25 miles thick. Continental crust is also much less dense than its oceanic counterpart. https://news.yale.edu/2022/06/30/thin-c ... ounterpart.

That would be 80 linear km not 129 km. And that is a problem.

I don't see what that has to do with drumlins. Are you denying that they were laid down by glaciers?

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that deep-time theories have no mechanism to produce an ice age.

No. Thermodynamics requires heat to move from hotter material to colder material. So unless the crust was hotter than the mantle (about 1000 degrees C at the top) heat would flow from the mantle to the crust. So that would heat the seas, which have a much lower mass than the crust itself; they would boil under those conditions.

What? That is not what happens now. Heat is generated in the asthenosphere right today. And you cannot make this claim because there are still mysteries in plate tectonic theory.

Although we don't fully understand the mechanism of what happened next, it's clear that the Indian continent began to be driven horizontally beneath Tibet like a giant wedge, forcing Tibet upwards. Tibet, meanwhile, is behaving like a giant roadblock that prevents the Himalaya from moving northward. Under the peaks and under most of Tibet the Indian plate is apparently gliding along almost frictionlessly. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subductio ... ion-en.svg

Stages of geologic evolution included (i) 4.5–4.4 Ga, magma ocean overturn involved ephemeral, surficial rocky platelets; (ii) 4.4–2.7 Ga, formation of oceanic and small continental plates were obliterated by return mantle flow prior to ~4.0 Ga; continental material gradually accumulated as largely sub-sea, sialic crust-capped lithospheric collages; (iii) 2.7–1.0 Ga, progressive suturing of old shields + younger orogenic belts led to cratonal plates typified by emerging continental freeboard, increasing sedimentary differentiation, and episodic glaciation during transpolar drift; onset of temporally limited stagnant-lid mantle convection occurred beneath enlarging supercontinents; (iv) 1.0 Ga–present, laminar-flowing asthenospheric cells are now capped by giant, stately moving plates.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... irculation

Then you really have the problem of why the tectonic plates in the mantle have not reached thermal equilibrium. Why are they still intact after billions of years?

If the Grand Canyon began forming about 4 million years ago, then it would average a bit less than 0.5mm/year. Which is not surprising for rock eroded by sediment-carrying water.

4 million years ago the source of the Colorado river would have been lower the top of the Colorado plateau. Are you saying that water flows uphill that is a new one?

[The Barbarian]

Because the mass of a continental shelf is much higher than that. Average width of a continental shelf is about 40 miles, and there were two of them, one for Asia, one for India. So about 129 linear km of continental shelf (full of marine fossils) being pushed up to replace the eroded material. The average height of the Himalayas is about 6km.
https://sage-advices.com/what-is-the-av ... s-class-9/

So if your numbers are right, only about 120km have been eroded away. I don't see a problem.

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #68]
40 Miles!!! What. 40 km. maybe is the continental crust.

The average width of a continental shelf is 65 kilometers (40 miles).
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... ntal-shelf

I don't see what that has to do with drumlins. Are you denying that they were laid down by glaciers?

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that deep-time theories have no mechanism to produce an ice age.
Thermodynamics requires heat to move from hotter material to colder material. So unless the crust was hotter than the mantle (about 1000 degrees C at the top) heat would flow from the mantle to the crust. So that would heat the seas, which have a much lower mass than the crust itself; they would boil under those conditions.

What? That is not what happens now.

Learn about it here:
Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
https://www.dummies.com/article/academi ... cs-174307/

Heat is generated in the asthenosphere right today.

Thermal energy is generated. But the second law applies regardless of who objects.

And you cannot make this claim because there are still mysteries in plate tectonic theory.

It always works. Never an exception.

Because the mass of a continental shelf is much higher than that. Average width of a continental shelf is about 40 miles, and there were two of them, one for Asia, one for India. So about 129 linear km of continental shelf (full of marine fossils) being pushed up to replace the eroded material. The average height of the Himalayas is about 6km.
https://sage-advices.com/what-is-the-av ... s-class-9/

40 Miles!!! What. 40 km. maybe is the continental crust.

The Earth is covered by two kinds of crust — continental and oceanic.

Actually, continental shelves are part of a continent.

That would be 80 linear km not 129 km. And that is a problem.

It would be, as you see, 80 linear miles. So not a problem.

I don't see what that has to do with drumlins. Are you denying that they were laid down by glaciers?

Not at all,

So why the dodge. You're telling us that drumlins weren't deposited by glaciers?

Then you really have the problem of why the tectonic plates in the mantle have not reached thermal equilibrium. Why are they still intact after billions of years?

Show us that, with your data on temperature.

If the Grand Canyon began forming about 4 million years ago, then it would average a bit less than 0.5mm/year. Which is not surprising for rock eroded by sediment-carrying water.

4 million years ago the source of the Colorado river would have been lower the top of the Colorado plateau.

Are you now saying that water flows uphill? That is a new one.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #71]

Uranium-238 and thorium 232 are the main, stable isotopes of those elements. Potassium-40 is 0.012% relative to total K, but still plays a significant role in heat generation in the mantle:

U-238 and Th - 232 are not stable.

U-238 half life of 4.5E9 years
Th-232 Halflife of 1.4E10 years

K-39 and K-41 are both stable.

Try again. The nucleus is too large to be stable on the heavier elements.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #76]

U-238 and Th - 232 are not stable.

U-238 half life of 4.5E9 years
Th-232 Halflife of 1.4E10 years

U-238 represents most of the U on Earth, with a half life near the age of the Earth. So it isn't "stable" in terms of never undergoing radioactive decay, but the half life is long enough that it cannot play a role in the rapid biblical flood explanations you are pushing (eg. Walt Brown's type of nonsense).

Wasn't the point of bringing up core and mantle heating via radioactive decay something to do with trying to explain how "the flood" explains the Grand Canyon, parts of continental plates not entirely melted in the mantle, etc.? You'd need massive amounts of decaying atoms with half lives of days to alter geologic processes on the time scale of Noah's flood. U-238 or Th-232 decay rates are many orders of magnitude too slow to have any role in processes alledged to have been caused by the mythical biblical flood ... it began and ended in an instant relative to geological time.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #72]

I'm just showing you that river meanders form slowly, not by floods. As the paper you cited says. If you don't agree with geologists, why did you cite a paper by geologists?

Slow is a relative term. What do you mean by slow?

Ok, let's get really basic here.

"Rivers begin in mountains or hills, where rain water or snowmelt collects and forms tiny streams called gullies. Gullies either grow larger when they collect more water and become streams themselves or meet streams and add to the water already in the stream. https://www.thoughtco.com/rivers-from-s ... e%20stream.

So all streams start as gullies. Do you know what can cause gullies? Floods can cause gullies. Like this.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-d ... archtype=0

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-erosi ... archtype=0

and this is caused by runoff very similar to what we see in the grand canyon.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-erosi ... archtype=0

Now both flood geology and current secular geology are actually saying the exact same thing when it comes to how the Grand Canyon was formed by recurring floods the only difference is the time scale of when the floods happen.

"Many scientists have presumed that the canyon was cut gradually and at a steady pace by the flow of the river, but some remarkable research indicates that the cutting has been periodic, punctuated by catastrophic floods so huge they are hard to imagine.

According to research by scientists from the University of Arizona, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the University of Utah, one flood alone was 37 times larger than the largest known flood from the Mississippi River. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97931&page=1"

As viewed in the links above runoff can cause deep cutting into the soil and rock if there is a lot of water. This was the initial action that is what formed the path of the Colorado river. And then subsequent flooding is what formed the Grand Canyon.

Secular scientists say:

Growing numbers of geologists now believe that Marble Canyon and the Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old — veritable infants on the geologic time scale, and much younger than the earlier 3-million- to 5-million–year-old estimates. Some scientists now believe that a third of the canyon's depth may have been cut in the blink of a geologic eye — perhaps during the past 600,000 to 700,000 years.

In addition, much of the excavation may have happened during a series of short, violent events that were linked by long periods of little change. This runs counter to previous theories that say the canyon formed slowly and continuously through uplift of the Kaibab Plateau and steady, day-by-day erosion by water and wind.

"Large sustained floods can cause rapid downcutting in bedrock," Webb said. The Inner Gorge and Marble Canyon are essentially giant slot canyons: features consistent with rapid down-cutting, he noted.

More evidence of the age of the Inner Gorge comes from 600,000-year-old lava flows in western Grand Canyon that lie near current river level in the vicinity of both the Toroweap and Hurricane Faults. If both the 770,000 and 600,000 year dates are correct, the presence of these lava flows suggests that the river may have downcut quickly in geologic terms.

When large dams fail catastrophically, such as Idaho's Teton Dam did in 1976, they leave distinctive profiles in soils and on canyon walls. The water drops quickly with an exponential decay curve. "We have that curve preserved from a lava dam that failed in Grand Canyon 165,000 years ago," Webb says.


For this to happen, the dam had to fail almost instantaneously. The Teton Dam, for instance, failed in less than two hours. Webb estimates that the resulting flows from the lava dam were up to 15 million cfs, — 37 times larger than the largest known Mississippi River flood. "These were some high dams," Webb says. "We estimate some were more than 1,500 feet tall."
https://news.arizona.edu/story/grand-ca ... gic-infant

So geologists from the University of Arizona, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Utah, Liberty University, and Cedarville University. I added the last two because I know what they believe. All believe that there is evidence that the Grand Canyon was created by a flood thousands of years ago not millions of years ago.

So you cannot say that the Grand Canyon could not have been created by a flood because there are a growing number of geologists who believe the evidence from the Canyon that it was formed from flooding. In fact, this theory from the University of Arizona is very similar to Walt Brown's theory that he proposed back in the 1980s. The only difference would be the time scale.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #77]

U-238 represents most of the U on Earth, with a half life near the age of the Earth. So it isn't "stable" in terms of never undergoing radioactive decay, but the half life is long enough that it cannot play a role in the rapid biblical flood explanations you are pushing (eg. Walt Brown's type of nonsense).

Wasn't the point of bringing up core and mantle heating via radioactive decay something to do with trying to explain how "the flood" explains the Grand Canyon, parts of continental plates not entirely melted in the mantle, etc.? You'd need massive amounts of decaying atoms with half lives of days to alter geologic processes on the time scale of Noah's flood. U-238 or Th-232 decay rates are many orders of magnitude too slow to have any role in processes alledged to have been caused by the mythical biblical flood ... it began and ended in an instant relative to geological time.

No, I was simply explaining to Barbarian why the core had a density of 12. something when the density of Iron is 7. something. And why uranium in granite is a mystery to deep-time theories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #79]

And why uranium in granite is a mystery to deep-time theories.

How so? Are you referring to Gentry's polonium halos ideas? Here are two takes on that ... which one is the most reasonable?

https://ncse.ngo/gentrys-tiny-mystery-u ... ed-geology

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... g-bullets/