Jacquo said:
Dear Evolutionists,
I wish to affirm your freedom to believe what you wish to believe...
I still have not heard of a name of a volcano in the Hymalayas?
And I think am still being read out of context.
But, you are free to do that.
It does not make it true.
Regards,
Jac
You're right, in my haste to respond to the whole article I failed to notice that you were talking solely about the Himalayas rather than simply using it as a sole source. Allow me to properly refute your argument, then.
Jarom.net said:
For any of this to be true for the 'evolution' of water organisms to land organisms then the land areas and the mountain ranges that make up the significant mass of land above sea level need to have been around for at least hundreds of millions of years.
For the purposes of this refutation we can assume this to be true.
Since land needs to be there for land creatures to exist. Now the tallest mountain range on earth is the Himalayas with Mount Everest (Chomolangma in Tibet and Sagamartha in Nepal) as the tallest at 8,850 metres: 8.85 km (29,035 feet).
This is also accurate.
The current observed erosion rate of this range of mountains is "height - 2-4 km (or more) of rock is removed from the surface of the Himalayas every 1 million years"4. So taking 3 km per million years as a reasonable rate from this, there will be no mountains there in 3 million years time: 3 km X 3 million years = 9 km erosion of more than the present height of the world's tallest mountain range. This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates: the plates that are understood to carry the major land masses as the surface of the earth.
The problem is, the erosion rates
don't take into account the increase in height due to tectonic activity. I don't know how you came away with the idea that Himalayan erosion counter-acts tectonic activity - it doesn't. The Himalayan mountain range is, currently, measured to be
increasing in height at a rate of roughly 6.1 cm every year. Do you know what this figure means? In 3 million years, as you used, the Himalayans will grow
183 kilometers in height at the current rate of growth. Now, obviously this growth rate hasn't held true for the past few million years, but your claim that the Himalayas are
losing height is completely baseless. The professor you contacted at UCSB was speaking solely of loss due to erosion, not of an actual loss in net height. The Himalayan mountains are well known for being the best example of a
growing mountain range.
However, I'm anticipating you denying all of this in advance. I have this habit of writing e-mails to professors or other authors whose works are cited by creationists asking them to clarify their statements that are usually taken out of context, as this one was. I've gone ahead and sent the following e-mail to Gail Gallessich, the author of the article you cited for the erosion figures seen in your paper:
To Gail Gallessich said:
Dear Gail Gallessich,
I am a student at the University of California, Irvine and am currently involved in a debate regarding the age of the earth (tangentially as it relates to the evolution vs. creationism debate) with a participant who is using the aformentioned article (Himalaya Erosion Found Uniform) found on the UCSB website. He says that he also contacted you (via e-mail) asking for confirmation of the 2 - 4 km / million years rate of erosion. I am worried that he may have made a serious error, however, in assuming that the erosion rate you cited represented a net loss of material from the Himalayan mountain range, and that this meant that the mountain range is decreasing in height. From what I understand, current measurements as to the change in height of the Himalayan mountain range place growth at around 6 cm / year. While I have presented this information to him (along with noting that the Himalayan's are one of the world's best-known growing mountain ranges), I feel that a statement from you, his original source, would go much further towards convincing him of the error.
My question then, in summary, is: Do your figures represent a net loss in the height of the Himalayan mountain range, or is the mountain range seeing a net gain in height instead? Thank you for any clarification you can offer.
Sincerely,
[Name removed]
P.S. For reference the paper in which the participant cited your article can be found at
http://www.jarom.net/impossible.php
The rest of that section of your paper operates under the assumption that the Himalayas are
shrinking, which isn't the case.
In the chance that the facts above don't convince you, I'll be sure to post Gail's response here so you can see it.