Overwhelming Evidence for an Old Earth

[Assyrian]

That is why I gave you my definition of it.

So you made up your own definition of a varve to exclude the evidence of age?

The critical content of the word is that it is a rhythmic deposit of glacial origin. Put time restriction like annual or season to it is only asking for trouble. It is also an unnecessary misleading to students.

In the field, one can only see the rhythmic fine grain deposit (which is characteristic enough) and can not identify the timing. So, the definitions you quoted are not practical and will encounter many exceptions.

I don't have time and opportunity to deal with this. Otherwise, I will try to change it.

The geological definitions are certainly not practical if you want to live in your own private world denying the evidence of the age of the rocks you are studying. Of course as you say, there are exceptions, the ones which are not varves, which is why they call the annual ones, well, varves. So how do the exceptions - that are not varves by the normal geological definition of varve - discount the evidence of age from pollen, dendrochronology and volcanic ash of the ones that actually are varves? And for practical field work, (though I do not know why that would be an excuse to ignore evidence you can get in a lab) don't the regular layers of varves even look different from the exceptions you want to lump in with them?

 

[miamited]

Hi Jazer,

Question: Do you understand how people can worship the Buddha? Do you understand how people can worship Allah? Do you understand how people can worship the pantheon of gods encompassed in Hinduism?

Man's heart is wicked, who can know it! There is a real enemy that is doing his very best to keep us from seeing the truth. He is more powerful than you. He is wiser than you. He held out to even God's only Son all the kingdoms of the world in order that even the Son betray the Father. Does that give you any inkling of an idea of how much that goes into your mental processes is a part of his lies and deception?

As I understand the creation, it was a miracle. Consider just for a moment that when God spoke the earth into existence as the very first piece of physical matter in this realm of His creation, that the Grand Canyon was there. It was and always has been a part of the physical geography of the land. Satan says, "look if you can explain how the Grand Canyon got here apart from God, you will have greater knowledge." So, man, in his ever incessant search for 'knowledge' regarding the answers to the hows and whys of this life and the creation in which we live comes up with a few. The water has for billions of years eroded the river bed. The glaciers of the ice age scraped it out as the ice moved across the land.

Now, let me ask you. Do you really believe that the earth was covered in glacial ice formations and yet in only one place on the entire earth did that ice move in a manner that would scrape out a single Grand Canyon? There are several such 'canyons' at the bottom of the ocean's floor. How did the ice carve those and why are they all, except for this one singular example of the Grand Canyon on the ocean's floor. If great ice glaciers created the Grand Canyon than why are there not at least 3 or 4 in various locations around the globe. There are many places around the world that have similar mantle make up of soil and rock.

Perhaps the river has, over billions of years worn it's way through the rock and carried off enough sediment to creat the canyon. Why only that one small area? The Colorado River is some 1400 miles long and yet there is only one small place of roughly 250 miles in which the river bed has sunk into a canyon and much of that is irregular in depth. Why? Furthermore, we again have the same questions as the glacier theory brings to mind. There are hundreds of rivers around the globe and many run through similar soil and rock types, the area of Afghanistan comes to mind, and yet the same water running for billions of years has done nothing of similar magnitude. The issue, for me, with science and natural processes creating some of the unique features of the earth is why is there only one of a kind? Further, if one river traveling over a predominantly rock bed can whittle away enough sediment to create the Grand Canyon, why hasn't the Mississipi River, the greatest force of river water in the whole nation done something at least similar to what the mighty Colorado River has done? Yet, for all we know, the entire length of the Mississippi River is pretty much running in the same river bed at the same depth in the underlying soil and rock as it always has been, and so too, are every other river in the whole earth. How can that be?

I can look at many rivers that dump into a larger body of water and there are deluvial plains in severa places around the globe. I can look at all the glaciers that are still upon the earth and there are many, many repeated processes and attributes that these glaciers are responsible for. Uniqueness, as in natural processes, is pretty much unheard of in nature. We can watch glacial movements and the effects of their being in the north pole of the earth and travel to the south pole and see pretty much all the same effects. Because of this lack of uniqueness, we can make fairly accurate precdictions about the movements and effects of natural processes. So, again I ask, why should we believe that only one place in all of the earth responded to whatever it was that created the Grand Canyon in the manner in which the earth responded?

So, whether you subscribe to the glacial formation or the river formation of the Grand Canyon there are a number of questions regarding why it is so unique that cause me to stop and ponder and continue to cling to what I believe is the truth.

On the other hand, if we simply accept that some miraculous force of a loving God created this unique feature, then we can just accept that and we don't need the knowledge of 'how' God did it. He just did! He's God and creating unique, one of a kind miracles is His signature. Only one virgin born Son. Only one day in which He parted the Red Sea. Only one time that He caused the Sun to stand still in the sky. Only one celestial body among all of the billions and billions and billions of stars, planets, asteroids, etc. for which He made a place for man to live.

You see when it comes to unique, God is King!!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

BTW, you wrote:
Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

Could you give some credits for that statement?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ghendricks63]

Hi Jazer,

Question: Do you understand how people can worship the Buddha? Do you understand how people can worship Allah? Do you understand how people can worship the pantheon of gods encompassed in Hinduism?

Man's heart is wicked, who can know it! There is a real enemy that is doing his very best to keep us from seeing the truth. He is more powerful than you. He is wiser than you. He held out to even God's only Son all the kingdoms of the world in order that even the Son betray the Father. Does that give you any inkling of an idea of how much that goes into your mental processes is a part of his lies and deception?

As I understand the creation, it was a miracle. Consider just for a moment that when God spoke the earth into existence as the very first piece of physical matter in this realm of His creation, that the Grand Canyon was there. It was and always has been a part of the physical geography of the land. Satan says, "look if you can explain how the Grand Canyon got here apart from God, you will have greater knowledge." So, man, in his ever incessant search for 'knowledge' regarding the answers to the hows and whys of this life and the creation in which we live comes up with a few. The water has for billions of years eroded the river bed. The glaciers of the ice age scraped it out as the ice moved across the land.

Now, let me ask you. Do you really believe that the earth was covered in glacial ice formations and yet in only one place on the entire earth did that ice move in a manner that would scrape out a single Grand Canyon? There are several such 'canyons' at the bottom of the ocean's floor. How did the ice carve those and why are they all, except for this one singular example of the Grand Canyon on the ocean's floor. If great ice glaciers created the Grand Canyon than why are there not at least 3 or 4 in various locations around the globe. There are many places around the world that have similar mantle make up of soil and rock.

Perhaps the river has, over billions of years worn it's way through the rock and carried off enough sediment to creat the canyon. Why only that one small area? The Colorado River is some 1400 miles long and yet there is only one small place of roughly 250 miles in which the river bed has sunk into a canyon and much of that is irregular in depth. Why? Furthermore, we again have the same questions as the glacier theory brings to mind. There are hundreds of rivers around the globe and many run through similar soil and rock types, the area of Afghanistan comes to mind, and yet the same water running for billions of years has done nothing of similar magnitude. The issue, for me, with science and natural processes creating some of the unique features of the earth is why is there only one of a kind? Further, if one river traveling over a predominantly rock bed can whittle away enough sediment to create the Grand Canyon, why hasn't the Mississipi River, the greatest force of river water in the whole nation done something at least similar to what the mighty Colorado River has done? Yet, for all we know, the entire length of the Mississippi River is pretty much running in the same river bed at the same depth in the underlying soil and rock as it always has been, and so too, are every other river in the whole earth. How can that be?

I can look at many rivers that dump into a larger body of water and there are deluvial plains in severa places around the globe. I can look at all the glaciers that are still upon the earth and there are many, many repeated processes and attributes that these glaciers are responsible for. Uniqueness, as in natural processes, is pretty much unheard of in nature. We can watch glacial movements and the effects of their being in the north pole of the earth and travel to the south pole and see pretty much all the same effects. Because of this lack of uniqueness, we can make fairly accurate precdictions about the movements and effects of natural processes. So, again I ask, why should we believe that only one place in all of the earth responded to whatever it was that created the Grand Canyon in the manner in which the earth responded?

So, whether you subscribe to the glacial formation or the river formation of the Grand Canyon there are a number of questions regarding why it is so unique that cause me to stop and ponder and continue to cling to what I believe is the truth.

On the other hand, if we simply accept that some miraculous force of a loving God created this unique feature, then we can just accept that and we don't need the knowledge of 'how' God did it. He just did! He's God and creating unique, one of a kind miracles is His signature. Only one virgin born Son. Only one day in which He parted the Red Sea. Only one time that He caused the Sun to stand still in the sky. Only one celestial body among all of the billions and billions and billions of stars, planets, asteroids, etc. for which He made a place for man to live.

You see when it comes to unique, God is King!!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

One simple question...WHY?

What I mean is simply why would God deliberately create deception for us in leaving such overwhelming evidence of billions of years of real history? (Not to be confused with the appearence of age) Why would He place a fabrication in the light timeline? (Super Novas we have witnessed that could not have actually hapened if the Universe was 6 to 10 thousand years old)

I have tremendous faith in God being the Creator. I do not have any faith at all in literalist interpretations that would deny the very evidence of that creation itself. This just seems extremely counter productive to me.

Genesis 1 and 2 is IMO a beautiful metaphore for God's creation in terms and language that was understood by primitive peoples and still conveyed the important spiritual truths. God's creation itself is His other revelation...no need to doubt Him in it.

 

[NNSV]

One simple question...WHY?

What I mean is simply why would God deliberately create deception for us in leaving such overwhelming evidence of billions of years of real history? (Not to be confused with the appearence of age) Why would He place a fabrication in the light timeline? (Super Novas we have witnessed that could not have actually hapened if the Universe was 6 to 10 thousand years old)

I have tremendous faith in God being the Creator. I do not have any faith at all in literalist interpretations that would deny the very evidence of that creation itself. This just seems extremely counter productive to me.

Genesis 1 and 2 is IMO a beautiful metaphore for God's creation in terms and language that was understood by primitive peoples and still conveyed the important spiritual truths. God's creation itself is His other revelation...no need to doubt Him in it.

Maybe the science you are trusting to give this overwhelming evidence isn't right. Just saying...scientists are human too. Just because something works doesn't mean it is the unique solution set, or if it even has a unique solution.

 

[ghendricks63]

Maybe the science you are trusting to give this overwhelming evidence isn't right. Just saying...scientists are human too. Just because something works doesn't mean it is the unique solution set, or if it even has a unique solution.

You're right...the sun may actually revolve around the Earth after all. Who'se to say it doesn't?

 

[NNSV]

You're right...the sun may actually revolve around the Earth after all. Who'se to say it doesn't?

...

Oh, that was sarcasm?


Anyway, in reality you don't know. Have you ever been into space? How do you know that when we exit earth's magnetosphere the physics doesn't change? Space shuttles and stations are still within the magnetosphere of the earth.

Also, have you ever heard of relativity? Reference frames? Not to be facetious, but how do you know the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Because of geometry? Because of what you see? You could be in the reference frame of an earth revolving around the sun when the opposite is reality.


What I am saying is if you didn't reproduce the experiments, or reproduce the math/science yourself, how do you know these things we take for granted to be true? Early mathematicians spent a lot of time proving 1 + 1 = 2, for example. It is because they knew "1" is arbitrary. We choose "1" to represent a singular quantity, but that is for certain fields of numbers.



Consider this: science is supposed to be about providing theories in such a manner that it is able to be reproduced in a lab, and verified by a member of the community. How, then, can we take for certain truth the things said about the cosmos when we cannot reproduce the cosmos in a lab? This is the purpose of super-colliders, but they haven't succeeded yet. Moreover, we have already established cosmological laws based on what we see through an ozone lens. All I am saying is before you say the bible is wrong and God deceived you, and it is just figurative or metaphorical, perhaps you should make sure the science presented in the world today isn't misleading or down-right lies.

 

[ghendricks63]

...

Oh, that was sarcasm?


Anyway, in reality you don't know. Have you ever been into space? How do you know that when we exit earth's magnetosphere the physics doesn't change? Space shuttles and stations are still within the magnetosphere of the earth.

Also, have you ever heard of relativity? Reference frames? Not to be facetious, but how do you know the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Because of geometry? Because of what you see? You could be in the reference frame of an earth revolving around the sun when the opposite is reality.


What I am saying is if you didn't reproduce the experiments, or reproduce the math/science yourself, how do you know these things we take for granted to be true? Early mathematicians spent a lot of time proving 1 + 1 = 2, for example. It is because they knew "1" is arbitrary. We choose "1" to represent a singular quantity, but that is for certain fields of numbers.



Consider this: science is supposed to be about providing theories in such a manner that it is able to be reproduced in a lab, and verified by a member of the community. How, then, can we take for certain truth the things said about the cosmos when we cannot reproduce the cosmos in a lab? This is the purpose of super-colliders, but they haven't succeeded yet. Moreover, we have already established cosmological laws based on what we see through an ozone lens. All I am saying is before you say the bible is wrong and God deceived you, and it is just figurative or metaphorical, perhaps you should make sure the science presented in the world today isn't misleading or down-right lies.

I would prefer to say it was illustration.

Science is about theories that happen to fit the evidence. Some theories become accepted as fact, others get replaced or rejected outright as more evidence is discovered or better theories are presented. Surely we would agree that the evidence for the Earth revolving around the sun has reached a point where we consider it accepted fact...even by you.

There are a great many dating methods that are not only consistant but cross supportive. We have such an potpourri of scientific disciplines that converge on questions of age that it really is OVERWHELMING. We do not need to have all the answer as to exactly how gravity works to accept that it is a fact that it does. In fact better theories on the mechanics of gravity have been accepted since Newton's day, but none of that changes the fact that gravity exists. As science continues to advance and understand the history of the universe better some of our present theories will be replaced...but none of that changes the fact that the evidence of the history exists.

As for the notion that the scientific community promotes actual lies to further some hidden aenda...this is easily dismissed by simply educating oneself as to how the scientific process works. EVERY theory is ardently challenged by other scientists from many different points of view and theological perspective. Mistakes are made often and filtered out over time...conspiracies based on lies are nothing more than the fodder of urban legends.

We are way past the point of any kind of plausible deniability for the age of creation. Furthermore...there is no reason at all to place the bible in such stark contradiction with God's creation. I do not believe He ever intended us to do so and we weaken the Christian faith tremendously by clinging to superstitions God never intended in the first place.

So again I ask you...Why? Why cling to an interpretation that places the bible in direct conflict with God's other revelation...the creation itself?

 

[juvenissun]

So you made up your own definition of a varve to exclude the evidence of age?


The geological definitions are certainly not practical if you want to live in your own private world denying the evidence of the age of the rocks you are studying. Of course as you say, there are exceptions, the ones which are not varves, which is why they call the annual ones, well, varves. So how do the exceptions - that are not varves by the normal geological definition of varve - discount the evidence of age from pollen, dendrochronology and volcanic ash of the ones that actually are varves? And for practical field work, (though I do not know why that would be an excuse to ignore evidence you can get in a lab) don't the regular layers of varves even look different from the exceptions you want to lump in with them?

"Annual" varves do not look the same. They varied in thickness of layers and in colors. I believe (I did not study it, yet) that non-annual varves are not distinguishable from those annual ones even to a microscopic scale.

So, what is the point to put the time constraint to its definition?

 

[Jase]

...

Oh, that was sarcasm?


Anyway, in reality you don't know. Have you ever been into space? How do you know that when we exit earth's magnetosphere the physics doesn't change? Space shuttles and stations are still within the magnetosphere of the earth.

Why would the laws of physics change when we are no longer under the magnetosphere (which also changes shape btw)? Not to mention, we've been farther than the magnetosphere. The moon exists beyond it, as do other planets we've sent probes to.

That seem like an arbitary boundary in which natural laws stop working.

We can observe and test the laws of physics to see that they are consistent. The sun is outside our magnetosphere, and yet light still travels at ~186, 300 miles per second from the sun to the earth.
The sun is energized by fusion reactions, which we can replicate on earth. We can observe the effects of gravity on objects beyond earth.

 

[Assyrian]

"Annual" varves do not look the same. They varied in thickness of layers and in colors. I believe (I did not study it, yet) that non-annual varves are not distinguishable from those annual ones even to a microscopic scale.

Sure annual varves do vary, but they are much are regular than non annual layers.

Here is Glenn Morton on the subject

Age of the Earth

[SIZE=+1]Varves[/SIZE]

Figure 2 This is Figure 4 in Lambert and Hsu's article. Lake Walensee Storm Varves (Left) vs. Lake Zurich Yearly Varves (Right). Notice the regular laminations on the part of the yearly varves.
Steve Austin wrote: "Thin, rhythmic silt and clay layers found in lakes are frequently called 'varves,' with each layer being considered to represent annual repetitions of a slow sedimentary process. Lambert and Hsu present evidence from a Swiss lake that these varve-like layers form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows. At one location five 'varves' formed during a single years." (Austin 1984, p. 272)
Obviously, Austin did not read the article carefully enough. The above is a drawing of Figure 4 in Lambert and Hsu's article. Lambert and Hsu stated "We do not intend to make an unwarranted generalization that no varves are deposits of annual cycles. Figure 4 shows varves from the mesotrophic Lake Zurich where the light laminae represent chemical sedimentation prevailing during summers and the darker laminae detrital sedimentation during winters. A comparison of those varves with the non-annual varves of the oligotrophic Walensee shows that the annual rhythms of Lake Zurich varves are more regular, while the irregularity of the Walensee 'varves' reflects the unpredictability of the weather."(Lambert and Hsu, 1979, p. 453-461) Austin's representation of Lake Walensee's varves as indicative that nonyearly varves are identical to yearly varves is entirely erroneous.

[SIZE=+1]Pollen in the varves[/SIZE]
Regular varves like those shown above on the right were described by Richard Foster Flint, an expert on Quaternary geology. He said (1971, p. 400),
"A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter. Proof that the couplets are annual, and therefore varves, is established on organic evidence, first recognized by Heer(1865). The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically being greatest in the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various genera are stratified systematically according to the season of blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the dark ones fall, winter and spring. Counts of the layers indicate a record that is valid through at least the last 7,000 years B. P. "
A cursory look at the layers in the figure above shows that they are not the same thing.
​

So, what is the point to put the time constraint to its definition?

Because it is true, because it is confirmed by pollen, volcanic ash, tree rings and carbon dating. What is the point in trying to ignore it?

 

[juvenissun]

Sure annual varves do vary, but they are much are regular than non annual layers.

Here is Glenn Morton on the subject

Age of the Earth


​

Because it is true, because it is confirmed by pollen, volcanic ash, tree rings and carbon dating. What is the point in trying to ignore it?

Nobody says it is not true (not the point of argument). But if you use the name varve for the annual varve, then what word you would use for the non-annual varve of glacial origin? Can you say that the annual-varve is much more common than the non-annual-varve? I don't have evidence, but I like to argue that it should be a reverse situation. Those annual varves might be exceptional, because that kind of sedimentary environment should be difficult to find.

And, I still can see a lot of other problems with the classic work of pollens.

Why don't you quit? You have no chance to win this argument. Nevertheless, if you like to learn, then I am happy to continue. (Yes, I admit that Austin's argument is not a good one. He did not really find a varve deposit. His example of varve is ugly. If you google "glacial rhythmic deposit" you will find many examples of non-annual varve deposits)

 

[Assyrian]

Nobody says it is not true (not the point of argument). But if you use the name varve for the annual varve, then what word you would use for the non-annual varve of glacial origin? Can you say that the annual-varve is much more common than the non-annual-varve? I don't have evidence, but I like to argue that it should be a reverse situation. Those annual varves might be exceptional, because that kind of sedimentary environment should be difficult to find.

And, I still can see a lot of other problems with the classic work of pollens.

Why don't you quit? You have no chance to win this argument. Nevertheless, if you like to learn, then I am happy to continue. (Yes, I admit that Austin's argument is not a good one. He did not really find a varve deposit. His example of varve is ugly. If you google "glacial rhythmic deposit" you will find many examples of non-annual varve deposits)

Depends on what you mean by 'winning'. If you mean convincing you to stop ignoring the evidence for age in geology, no there is not much chance of that, not while your mind is so firmly closed. But if you mean showing that you haven't a leg to stand on, I have already done that.

As for having a different name for annual varves and other rhythmites, isn't geology based on identifying and naming different sorts of rocks? I mean if you are going to obfuscate like that, why not just call them all 'rock' and 'mud'? Meanwhile geologists can go ahead call the annual ones varves or annual laminates, and refer to the others simply as rhythmites or give them names based on how they were formed like tidal rhythmites. That way you don't have to hide all the information we can find out about their history.

 

[juvenissun]

Depends on what you mean by 'winning'. If you mean convincing you to stop ignoring the evidence for age in geology, no there is not much chance of that, not while your mind is so firmly closed. But if you mean showing that you haven't a leg to stand on, I have already done that.

As for having a different name for annual varves and other rhythmites, isn't geology based on identifying and naming different sorts of rocks? I mean if you are going to obfuscate like that, why not just call them all 'rock' and 'mud'? Meanwhile geologists can go ahead call the annual ones varves or annual laminates, and refer to the others simply as rhythmites or give them names based on how they were formed like tidal rhythmites. That way you don't have to hide all the information we can find out about their history.

Make sense, but miss the point.

I am repeating: the critical meaning of varve is on its glacial origin because there are many other kind of rhythmites. If the annual varve is not common, than it should not monopolize this term, and should be treated as a special case. I think this is clear enough to all arguments we have made so far.

Consider you are probably not trained in geology, I am impressed by your ability in the argument of geological issues. Is geology beautiful? I think it is more beautiful than other sciences.

 

[Assyrian]

Make sense, but miss the point.

I am repeating: the critical meaning of varve is on its glacial origin because there are many other kind of rhythmites. If the annual varve is not common, than it should not monopolize this term, and should be treated as a special case. I think this is clear enough to all arguments we have made so far.

As we have seen, the term varve was coined to describe annual layers of glacial origin. But even if you have your way and get the geological community to change its terminology, you still have identifiable annual varves, which being as you say a special case merit a special term to describe them, whether you want to call them 'annual varves' or 'oh no I don't want to look varves' and the identifiable annual varves, whatever you call them, still show the evidence of age you want to deny.

 

[juvenissun]

As we have seen, the term varve was coined to describe annual layers of glacial origin. But even if you have your way and get the geological community to change its terminology, you still have identifiable annual varves, which being as you say a special case merit a special term to describe them, whether you want to call them 'annual varves' or 'oh no I don't want to look varves' and the identifiable annual varves, whatever you call them, still show the evidence of age you want to deny.

Great, we are out of the looping argument now.

No, I do not deny the meaning of annual varve (assume I accept it). In fact, radiometric dating provided a much stronger argument of old age than what the annual varves can do. Even you can find a 10,000-layer annual varve, it is still only 10,000 years. If one liked to use that as an evidence of YE, I am very happy to see that.

 

[Assyrian]

Great, we are out of the looping argument now.

No, I do not deny the meaning of annual varve (assume I accept it). In fact, radiometric dating provided a much stronger argument of old age than what the annual varves can do. Even you can find a 10,000-layer annual varve, it is still only 10,000 years. If one liked to use that as an evidence of YE, I am very happy to see that.

So when radiometric dating of volcanic ash is confirmed by varves, that means the age calculated from half lives is a real age not just relative? How do you think that happened?

 

[juvenissun]

So when radiometric dating of volcanic ash is confirmed by varves, that means the age calculated from half lives is a real age not just relative? How do you think that happened?

Wooo... Stop. You are getting off line.

You mean ash in the varves get dated? I don't see how could that happen. If there were such work, I like to read it.

I said that radiometric dating "works". Do you know what does that mean? That means everything it can do so it is able to give a consistent "age" with results of all other methods. Otherwise, it means that it does not "work". And there are many many examples that illustrated it works only if the study is very carefully done. Date ash in varve sounds like one of the toughest job in that profession.

It works because the systems are internally consistent. The only factor outside the systems is the time. Internally consistent systems get a timing mark does not mean the true time is what the system indicated.

 

[Smidlee]

The problem with those geology dates is how huge the erosion rates are especially when talking about millions of years (this is using very conservative numbers as erosion should been greater in the past). There is even been a recent report claiming wind can erode away mountains just as effective as rivers and glaciers.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem with those geology dates is how huge the erosion rates are especially when talking about millions of years (this is using very conservative numbers as erosion should been greater in the past). There is even been a recent report claiming wind can erode away mountains just as effective as rivers and glaciers.

A common misconception is that erosion only "strips" land from the surface. In fact, erosion would be even faster by eroding sublayers and it caused the overburden layers to collapse.