Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Exclusively uniformitarianism
2
40%
Mainly uniformitarianism
2
40%
A mix of both
1
20%
Mainly catastrophism
0
No votes
Exclusively catastrophism
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 5

Mr-Vaquero
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2022 8:48 am

Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #61

Post by The Barbarian »

I imagine it was a surprise to learn how it works. Only old rivers meander. But uplift can then lock them into the meanders and they cut deeper and deeper. Learn about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_river

In fact, oxbows won't form if the land is uplifted. The stream will be trapped in its bed and will form ever-deepening entrenched meanders. Oxbow lakes only form in old rivers that are not uplifted.

This is why we know the Colorado River could not have been formed by a sudden rush of water. As you learned earlier, there is at least one example of a huge regional flood (Washington Scablands), and it looks nothing like the Colorado river.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 4:18 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #57]
Ok, let me help you again.

There is the meandering of old rivers that happens on flat plains with no uplifting needed. And then there is entrenched meandering that happens when an old river basin is uplifted and a river is said to be rejuvenated because it looks more like a young stream than an old stream.
That's what I just showed you. Didn't you read the link?
The Grand Canyon actually looks like a young stream because of the steep sides of the canyon.
No. Young rivers don't have meanders. They run in relatively straight courses, and have deep v-shaped valleys.
Old rivers meander and have wide, u-shped valleys.
Rejuvenated (uplifted) rivers meander and have deep, v-shaped valleys.

Does that help?
This is the problem with the Grand Canyon they say it is an old river that has been rejuvenated by up lift but we do not see the cutting into the sides of the gorge when a hard layer is reached.
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.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #62

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 4:09 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
I am sorry I should have said that "there is no landform that cannot be explained by catastrophe", I thought that is what I said but I did say "water catastrophe."
That's wrong, too. Himalayas, for example. We see that they are still pushing upward a few centimeters a year, as India moves into Asia. A very gradual process. Mississippi river delta. Analysis of its growth shows that it's been forming for over 100,000 years.

Drumlins in the upper US and Canada. Unsorted sediment carried by a continental glacier and then left behind after melting. Could not have been suddenly produced.
(regarding how Earth's layers change density)

That's one way. For example, accumulation of the heat from radioactive decay. In the core, that's what's going on. But it does take some time to reach equilibrium after a planet forms. A change in composition of the material would also do that such as movement of material by gravity and convection. This is why the layers of the Earth have different compositions. If the Earth formed by accretion at the beginning of the solar system, we'd expect the crust to be composed of denser material as well as the lighter stuff we see today. Over billions of years, gravity and convection moves things around.
It does not seem that you understand what accretion is according to your comment above. What you are describing above has absolutely nothing to do with what caused the earth to have layers.
Well, let's take a look at that.
As to why Earth is layered, early in its history it got hot enough (from gravitational compression, the energy of impacting bodies, and radiation, to have partially melted. When this happened, the densest material sank toward Earth's center, while the less dense stuff rose to the top. It's a little like a hot chocolate-- foam floats to the surface, and the heavy syrup settles to the bottom.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3723

Geologists say you're wrong.
This is the reason why deep-time theorists believe that the core would have to have radioactive elements because radioactive elements are heavy elements.
No, that's not true. For example, liithum has radioactive isotopes. So does Helium. And so on.
You really should stay with biology. You are pretty good at biology but Chemistry and geology not so much.
Well, let's take a llook...

Radioactive isotopes of lithium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

Radioactive sotopes of aluminum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_aluminium

Radioactive isotopes of helium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium

The chart you googled confused you. It only marks those elements with no stable isotopes, not the only elements with radioactive isotopes. Take another look. Do you see your mistake?
Unfortunately, the movement of continents means all that energy must be accounted for if the crust decelerates. If it happened in a few thousand years, the heat would have boiled the seas.
Why would the heat be transferred to the surface when the plates were going down into the mantle?
The heat would be generated at the crust/mantle boundary. Oceanic crust is only about 6km thick. So this increadibly huge heat would boiil the seas.
The tectonic plate is moving down to the bottom of the mantle and it would take much of the heat with it.
Here, you're confusing heat with thermal energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy:

Heat is what scientists call the form of energy that is transferred between two materials of different temperature. This transfer of energy occurs because of differences in the average translational kinetic energy per molecule in the two materials. Heat flows from the material with higher temperature to the material with lower temperature until thermal equilibrium is reached.
https://sciencing.com/heat-physics-defi ... 22754.html

The only way heat could flow from the crust to the mantle would be if the crust was hotter than the mantle. Even if the crust was moving at the speeds demanded by YE creationism, it wouldn't become that hot. Hot enough to boil the seas, but not as hot as the mantle. Snce we know the specific heat of water, the specific heat of granite, and we can calculate the mass of the oceans and continents. And since kinetic energy is mass times acceleration, we can calculate how much energy would be absorbed in thermal energy when they decelerated, and see if it was enough to heat up the seas. I suppose I could do that for you, if you'd like.

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding. Nor can the Mississippi River. Would you like me to show you why?
If it is anything like your explanation of why rivers meander or why there are heavy elements in the crust.
I showed you how rivers meander. The mechanism is quite simple. Do you want me to show you again? I didn't say why there are heavy elements in the crust, however.

I imagine it was a surprise to learn how it works. Only old rivers meander. But uplift can then lock them into the meanders and they cut deeper and deeper. Learn about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_river
And yes entrenched meanders can be caused by flooding.

And I would say that most entrenched meanders would be caused by flooding. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30056780
The paper doesn't say what you claim it does. It says entrenched meanders can be modified by sudden floods. That's what the title of the paper says. Did you not read it?
You claimed that organic molecules can't survive for millions of years, but haven't provided any evidence for you assumption. On the other hand, we have cholesterol from PreCambrian animal fossils, which clearly refutes your assumption.
You have yet to produce a mechanism to show how this can take place.
No. You cliaim that it can't happen. Up to you to prove that it can't.
I am so supposed to prove something that we already know does not happen.
No. You merely assume that it can't. You have to explain how you think this can't happen.

Or iron already present as in the case of the preserved heme in T-rex bone. And given the amount of evidence for long ages, there's really no reason to believe your assumption.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #63

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #61]
I imagine it was a surprise to learn how it works. Only old rivers meander. But uplift can then lock them into the meanders and they cut deeper and deeper. Learn about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_river

In fact, oxbows won't form if the land is uplifted. The stream will be trapped in its bed and will form ever-deepening entrenched meanders. Oxbow lakes only form in old rivers that are not uplifted.

This is why we know the Colorado River could not have been formed by a sudden rush of water. As you learned earlier, there is at least one example of a huge regional flood (Washington Scablands), and it looks nothing like the Colorado river.
Yes entrenched meanders can be formed by flood waters; https://www.jstor.org/stable/30056780

And there are some pretty good meaders in the canyon that were made by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in about 25 days or something like that.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_bWjcIdRUDCo/Rqu ... C_4757.jpg

Along with the Channeled Scablands

https://www.alamy.com/dry-falls-cliffs- ... archtype=0

So are you a proponent of John Wesley Powell's theory the antecedent river theory?
Or do you prefer one of the variations of stream capture theory?

But I guess this is what most deep-time scientist think.
Scientists are in general agreement that the birth of the canyon started about 6 million years ago — still just the blinking of an eye in geological time — when the Colorado River formed its present path to the sea. To say that the river created the canyon is a gross oversimplification. But it was the dominant player, carving a trench that exposed layers of rock along its side to wind and water erosion.https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97931&page=1
When possible the scientists then date these rock deposits. The age of the river falls between the rocks determined to be older than the river and those determined to be younger. Through this method, scientists have estimated an age for the river, and thus the canyon through which it flows, of 5-6 million years. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/g ... d%20Canyon.

Well, now since you learned how a river forms a meander and the difference between a meander on an old stream, an incised meander and a rejuvenated river I think we can go on to describe how an incised meander like horseshoe bend at the Grand Canyon forms.

Horseshoe bend had to be formed by a large amount of fast-flowing water just like all other canyons including incised meanders form from water. Canyons and incised meanders are formed by a high discharge of water and a lowering base level (lowering of the water level.) A deep canyon points to high-energy water. Just like a young stream will cut a narrow channel into hard rock. A larger volume of water is needed to form a larger channel.

A slower-flowing river like Colorado is flowing today, would cut horizontally because there would be nothing to sweep away the deposition or alluvium. Today we see the Colorado river cutting into the sides of the Canyon in places like horseshoe bend not into the harder rock below.
In a few million years, Grand Canyon also may be a bit deeper, though the canyon isn't getting deeper nearly as fast as it is getting wider. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm
So when are you saying that the Colorado had more water flowing through it than it does today? Oh wait I know maybe there were periodic floods that caused the Grand Canyon.
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
Wow, who would have thought that a flood would have caused the Grand Canyon?
That's what I just showed you. Didn't you read the link?
No, why would I this is like Jr. High geology I am teaching you.
No. Young rivers don't have meanders. They run in relatively straight courses, and have deep v-shaped valleys.
Old rivers meander and have wide, u-shped valleys.
Rejuvenated (uplifted) rivers meander and have deep, v-shaped valleys.

Does that help?
Yes, it does thank you!! You confirmed that the Grand Canyon does have characteristics of a young stream, which requires high-energy water. And for there to be wide valleys in the Canyon there had to be much more water flowing in Colorado then we do today. Things like floods ad to occur. Like you just learned about. Because the only thing that could have made structures like the Horseshoe bend is a large volume of water with a lowering base level. As you learned before. Remember repetition is the key to learning.
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.
What do you mean it gets "trapped"? Are you saying that there is a back up of water and when the damp breaks and a flood occurs and carves out the canyon? Because that is what it sounds like to me. And as you have learned there are many scientist that believe the Canyon was carved out by flood waters.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #64

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 2:56 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

Yes entrenched meanders can be formed by flood waters; https://www.jstor.org/stable/30056780
It doesn't say flood waters formed the meanders. It says that they formed slowly. It says flooding can modify entrenched meanders. Didn't you read it?

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.

(my emphasis)
And there are some pretty good meaders in the canyon that were made by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in about 25 days or something like that.
Nope. I was there about a decade after the eruption. If the picture you posted isn't the photo I took at that site (and put on the net back then) it's from the same spot on Johnson's ridge. Notice that there are trees and vegetation growing down there. Right after the eruption there were none. The pyroclastic flow went over that area, then up the ridge and down the other side, and a good deal farther. Here's what it looked like then, on the other side of the ridge:
Image

Did you honestly think that shot was taken less than a month after the eruption? Those would be mighty fast-growing trees. Here's a better shot of that stream, taken back then. Notice there is no meandering.
Image

http://bp3.blogger.com/_bWjcIdRUDCo/Rqu ... C_4757.jpg
Along with the Channeled Scablands
https://www.alamy.com/dry-falls-cliffs- ... archtype=0[/quote]

No entrenched meanders there. Do you know what a meander is?
Well, now since you learned how a river forms a meander and the difference between a meander on an old stream, an incised meander
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?
and a rejuvenated river I think we can go on to describe how an incised meander like horseshoe bend at the Grand Canyon forms.
Geologists know how they form. An old river on nearly level ground meanders because of differential erosion on the inner and outer banks of a bend. The river bed moves around over time. If the land is uplifted, the stream is trapped in its bed and cuts deeper and deeper over time.
Horseshoe bend had to be formed by a large amount of fast-flowing water just like all other canyons including incised meanders form from water.
Doesn't happen. Young streams form relatively straight courses and do not meander. Notice that at Mt. St. Helens, there are no such meanders. The soft ash slumps into the stream bed if if gets more than a few meters deep. Take another look at the photo. Here's a shot including the stream with the volcano itself that I also took then:
Image
Canyons and incised meanders are formed by a high discharge of water and a lowering base level (lowering of the water level.)
Wrong. As you now see (and as the paper you cited noted) such features are produced slowly.
A deep canyon points to high-energy water.
Or a rejuvenated river. The difference is, a young river is relatively straight. An old river that has been uplifted will form a deep canyon, but with meanders.

Didn't you read the link?
No, why would I?
You would have learned the difference between old rivers, rejuvenated rivers, and young rivers. You still don't get it.

Young rivers don't have meanders. They run in relatively straight courses, and have deep v-shaped valleys.
Old rivers meander and have wide, u-shaped valleys.
Rejuvenated (uplifted) rivers meander and have deep, v-shaped valleys.

Does that help?
Yes, it does thank you!! You confirmed that the Grand Canyon does have characteristics of a young stream
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.
What do you mean it gets "trapped"?
Geologists mean that such a river will no longer form new meanders, but will remain in the existing bed. This is why it cuts down into the rock.

You might want to go visit Mt. St. Helens someday. My photos don't really convey the scale and extent of the eruption.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #65

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 2:56 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
So are you a proponent of John Wesley Powell's theory the antecedent river theory?
Or do you prefer one of the variations of stream capture theory?
By definition, a river with v-shaped valleys and meanders is an antecedent river. No consequent river has both of those. "Antecedent" isn't a theory; it's a description.

River capture would be like the Mississippi breaking into the Atchafalaya river. Which is pretty much inevitable, regardless of what the Corps of Engineers might do to stop it.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #66

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #62]
That's wrong, too. Himalayas, for example. We see that they are still pushing upward a few centimeters a year, as India moves into Asia.


Yes, it uplifts about 2.5 cm every year and it erodes about .003 m every year and right now it is about 9 km high. Deep-time would then say that Everest would erode 3 km per million years, so every 3 million years 9 km of material would be eroded away. Deep-time says that Everest is 60 million years old which means that the height that Everest is now would have eroded away 20 times. (http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6092) So why are there marine fossils still on Everest?
Mississippi river delta. Analysis of its growth shows that it's been forming for over 100,000 years.
How are you measuring this?
Drumlins in the upper US and Canada. Unsorted sediment carried by a continental glacier and then left behind after melting. Could not have been suddenly produced.
Ok, then what caused an ice age with such high precipitation? If the Earth cooled by volcanic activity or the Milankovitch mechanism (changing orbit of the Earth) where did the water vapor come from to cause that much glaciation because cool air does not hold that much water? This would be especially true after the oceans and lakes froze over. Take for example Antarctica and the average precipitation by month https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@6697173/climate

Notice that November has the lowest at .09 inches. Because of the frozen ocean around Antarctica at that time even though Antarctica is in a warming period. If there was an ice age like the one described by deep-time theorists how where would the water vapor come from to produce the glaciers in the interior continent regions?
Well, let's take a llook...

Radioactive isotopes of lithium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

Radioactive sotopes of aluminum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_aluminium

Radioactive isotopes of helium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium

The chart you googled confused you. It only marks those elements with no stable isotopes, not the only elements with radioactive isotopes. Take another look. Do you see your mistake?
Yes, you are not understanding the difference between a radioactive ISOTOPE and a radioactive element. It is radioactive elements (elements that do not have stable isotopes) that produce the heat in the Earth. Or at least that is what is needed for the theory. There are definitely heavy elements in the core because of the high density that it has. But if you want to have a lighter core fill free to propose that theory. So just how did that much radioactive lithium stay in the core for so long when every isotope except for lithium-6 has half-lives of a fraction of a second? Along with lithium having a density of .534 g/ml meaning it will float in water.

Good luck with that theory.
The only way heat could flow from the crust to the mantle would be if the crust was hotter than the mantle. Even if the crust was moving at the speeds demanded by YE creationism, it wouldn't become that hot. Hot enough to boil the seas, but not as hot as the mantle. Snce we know the specific heat of water, the specific heat of granite, and we can calculate the mass of the oceans and continents. And since kinetic energy is mass times acceleration, we can calculate how much energy would be absorbed in thermal energy when they decelerated, and see if it was enough to heat up the seas. I suppose I could do that for you, if you'd like.
You might be able to calculate that for me but you would not be calculating Kinetic energy you would be calculating the force needed to slow the plate down. The equation for kinetic energy is 1/2 mv2

If we use Walt Brown's hypothesis that the plates were moving at 40 mph that would give a kinetic energy 5.4 E22 kJ. That is if the entire crust were moving at 40 mph, with a mass of 2.6 E22. Most if not all of the energy would be transferred to the mantle in order to decrease the density of the mantle into molten material. This is the problem with tectonic plates that are on the bottom of the mantle. Where did the energy come from to decrease the density of the mantle?
As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding.
The Colorado river is not cutting into the harder rock today. The Grand Canyon is getting wider, not deeper. So why is it not cutting into the basement rock today?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #67

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #66]
Yes, it uplifts about 2.5 cm every year and it erodes about .003 m every year and right now it is about 9 km high. Deep-time would then say that Everest would erode 3 km per million years, so every 3 million years 9 km of material would be eroded away. Deep-time says that Everest is 60 million years old which means that the height that Everest is now would have eroded away 20 times.
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.
... where did the water vapor come from to cause that much glaciation ...
From the oceans of water bound up in ringwoodite of course! If that explanation can be used for where Noah's flood water came from, it should be on the table for any other hypothesis that needs a ridiculously large and unfeasible source of H2O. That's "creation science" after all.
It is radioactive elements (elements that do not have stable isotopes) that produce the heat in the Earth. Or at least that is what is needed for the theory.
Are you claiming that uranium-238, potassium-40, and thorium-232 are not stable isotopes? This is big news ... better alert these people:

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rel ... heat.shtml
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #68

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:17 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #62]
That's wrong, too. Himalayas, for example. We see that they are still pushing upward a few centimeters a year, as India moves into Asia.


Yes, it uplifts about 2.5 cm every year and it erodes about .003 m every year and right now it is about 9 km high. Deep-time would then say that Everest would erode 3 km per million years, so every 3 million years 9 km of material would be eroded away. Deep-time says that Everest is 60 million years old which means that the height that Everest is now would have eroded away 20 times. (http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6092) So why are there marine fossils still on Everest?


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.
Drumlins in the upper US and Canada. Unsorted sediment carried by a continental glacier and then left behind after melting. Could not have been suddenly produced.
Ok, then what caused an ice age with such high precipitation?
I don't see what that has to do with drumlins. Are you denying that they were laid down by glaciers?

(denial of radioactive light elements)
Well, let's take a llook...

Radioactive isotopes of lithium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

Radioactive sotopes of aluminum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_aluminium

Radioactive isotopes of helium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium

The chart you googled confused you. It only marks those elements with no stable isotopes, not the only elements with radioactive isotopes. Take another look. Do you see your mistake?[/quote]
Yes, you are not understanding the difference between a radioactive ISOTOPE and a radioactive element.
Every form of an element is an isotope. An isotope is merely a form of an element with a given number of neutrons. All atoms with the same number of protons are isotopes of the same element. And as someone has already explained to you, radioactive elements can have stable isotopes.

The only way heat could flow from the crust to the mantle would be if the crust was hotter than the mantle. Even if the crust was moving at the speeds demanded by YE creationism, it wouldn't become that hot. Hot enough to boil the seas, but not as hot as the mantle. Since we know the specific heat of water, the specific heat of granite, and we can calculate the mass of the oceans and continents. And since kinetic energy is mass times acceleration, we can calculate how much energy would be absorbed in thermal energy when they decelerated, and see if it was enough to heat up the seas. I suppose I could do that for you, if you'd like.
You might be able to calculate that for me but you would not be calculating Kinetic energy you would be calculating the force needed to slow the plate down. The equation for kinetic energy is 1/2 mv2


Sorry, mislabeled that. I meant energy. Why do we need energy? Because that energy must be converted to heat when the continents are slowed down. And yes, that would be 0.5XmassXvelocity squared.
If we use Walt Brown's hypothesis that the plates were moving at 40 mph that would give a kinetic energy 5.4 E22 kJ. That is if the entire crust were moving at 40 mph, with a mass of 2.6 E22. Most if not all of the energy would be transferred to the mantle in order to decrease the density of the mantle into molten material.
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.
This is the problem with tectonic plates that are on the bottom of the mantle. Where did the energy come from to decrease the density of the mantle?

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

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding.
The Colorado river is not cutting into the harder rock today.
All rock is eroded by moving water. Some slower then others, but it is eroding.
The Grand Canyon is getting wider, not deeper. So why is it not cutting into the basement rock today?
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.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #69

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
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.
Great quote; Let us take a look at it.

1. Little change had taken place in the gorge. 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. This form was made as the flood waters receded and then the Canyon was deeped when as water from higher likes whose dams broke came down and flowed down the Colorado River.

Just like these scientists said happened.
"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 "

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.

2. their modification in a single flood is definite evidence that such erosion is extraordinary.
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?
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. Like the paper I cited said and these secular geologists seem to think. The channel was formed as the flood waters receded and slowed. And then when water from trapped likes at higher elevations dams broke the channels were deepened and widened.

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
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.
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. This says that the Colorado river maintained its original course and pattern despite the changes in underlying rock topography. A stream with a dendritic drainage pattern, for example, can be subject to slow tectonic uplift. However, as the uplift occurs, the stream erodes through the rising ridge to form a steep-walled gorge. The stream thus keeps its dendritic pattern even though it flows over a landscape that will normally produce a trellis drainage pattern. Which is exactly what you have been arguing. But this theory has been rejected by most geologists. Because of radioisotope dating of the basalt rocks on the south and north rim.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Post #70

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[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.
From the oceans of water bound up in ringwoodite of course! If that explanation can be used for where Noah's flood water came from, it should be on the table for any other hypothesis that needs a ridiculously large and unfeasible source of H2O. That's "creation science" after all.
There is no such thing as Creation Science. There is theistic cosmology. Because we are only talking about a difference in the assumption at creation.
Are you claiming that uranium-238, potassium-40, and thorium-232 are not stable isotopes? This is big news ... better alert these people:
Nope, are you claiming that ore of Uranium and thorium does not give off radiation?

Post Reply