Growing Rocks

[Ark Guy]

In work today we had a little discussion about landscaping. in our conversation we talked about “growing rocks”. Of course we all know that rocks don’t actually grow....it’s just a metaphor.....anyway, the water seems to get under and around these rocks which freezes during the winter and pushes them up to the surface where at a later date we try to cut them with our lawnmowers. There seems to be something to these growing rocks because I can testify first hand to new rocks appearing on my property. Now, the way I look at these rocks is like this, after a while all the rocks in the “frost area” (frost line up) should eventually work themselves to the surface. It might take a little time, certainly not in 25 years but you think that with in a few dozen thousand years or certainly a million or two years the rocks would “grow” to the surface. It seems to reason that these rocks that date back to the dino age....or so the geologist claim...should be plentiful on the surface and below the frost line and void just under the surface and just above the frost line. Of course I’ve dug a few holes in my day and I know it ain’t so. Those dino age rocks are at all levels in the holes I’ve dug.....and as an X-fence installer I’ve dug my fair share of post holes.
Perhaps those “dino”age rocks really arn’t “dino” age rocks and instead were left by a flood about 4,000 years ago? Of course some people can answer back with the exception to the rule where the land has recently been re-worked , but this isn’t the case in this situation. The “dino age rocks” are present through out the frost line up to the surface which seems to present a problem for the old earthers.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

I can testify first hand to new rocks appearing on my property. Now, the way I look at these rocks is like this, after a while all the rocks in the “frost area” (frost line up) should eventually work themselves to the surface. It might take a little time, certainly not in 25 years but you think that with in a few dozen thousand years or certainly a million or two years the rocks would “grow” to the surface.

However, assuming this is true, and that the earth is 6000 years old anyway, then this information does not actually matter. If it could not happen in the 6000-10000 year timeframe, then it has little to do with young earth creationism, if not to falsify it.

Of course I’ve dug a few holes in my day and I know it ain’t so. Those dino age rocks are at all levels in the holes I’ve dug.....and as an X-fence installer I’ve dug my fair share of post holes.

?
Not quite understanding what you are saying, sorry.

Perhaps those “dino”age rocks really arn’t “dino” age rocks and instead were left by a flood about 4,000 years ago? Of course some people can answer back with the exception to the rule where the land has recently been re-worked , but this isn’t the case in this situation. The “dino age rocks” are present through out the frost line up to the surface which seems to present a problem for the old earthers.

Now, assuming this is all true, there is still a contridiction:

You yourself said that it would take a considerable time for this to occur. It would make perfect sense in this case, except the fact that it can not happen within the YEC time frame given. Unless of course you were to speed up the whole process, although in doing so you would eventually kill us all due to the wide varieties of catastrophies that could occur due to the rapid process of a geological change which should take thousands upon thousands of years.



However, this is a new and interesting argument. Good thought.

 

[notto]

You are assuming that the land where this occurs has been in a climate of cold for 'millions of years'. Plate techtonics tells us that this is most likely not the case as the land masses are moving through different climates. Local flooding and glaciers can also form and move soil and rocks. What area of the country are you working in?

Without any real calculations or measured observations, it would be hard to make any conclusions. Your thought is interesting, but would require additional work to come to any meaningful result.

 

[lucaspa]

Now, the way I look at these rocks is like this, after a while all the rocks in the “frost area” (frost line up) should eventually work themselves to the surface. It might take a little time, certainly not in 25 years but you think that with in a few dozen thousand years or certainly a million or two years the rocks would “grow” to the surface. It seems to reason that these rocks that date back to the dino age....or so the geologist claim...should be plentiful on the surface and below the frost line and void just under the surface and just above the frost line. Of course I’ve dug a few holes in my day and I know it ain’t so. Those dino age rocks are at all levels in the holes I’ve dug.....and as an X-fence installer I’ve dug my fair share of post holes.

1. Erosion is continually going to lower the "frost line", isn't it? So there is always going to be a new supply of rocks from what used to be below the frost line. Of course, erosion will probably take you down to the underlying rocks in a million years.

2. Your deduction does not follow. It appears that you live in an area where the underlying strata is from the Mesozoic Era. Therefore, the broken pieces of sedimentary rock are going to come from that Era. Since they are in the stages of working their way to the surface, of course you are going to find them all thru the hole. After all, those layers can be thousands of feet deep (see Rockie Mountains) and so there is a continuing supply of those rocks working their way to the surface. No problem.

 

[notto]

Of course, if ArKGuys hypothesis is taken to its final conclusion and if it was found to be correct (these rocks were left by the flood throughout the sediment and specifically above the frost line) it would be a nail in the coffin for hydrologic sorting as a model to explain the layering of fossils as rocks and boulders should certainly be at the bottom in this model as they are more dense than any animal or plant I can think of (Unless, like flowering plants, they were able to outrun the flood).

 

[seebs]

Of course, if ArKGuys hypothesis is taken to its final conclusion and if it was found to be correct (these rocks were left by the flood throughout the sediment and specifically above the frost line) it would be a nail in the coffin for hydrologic as a model to explain the layering of fossils as rocks and boulders should certainly be at the bottom in this model as they are more dense than any animal or plant I can think of (Unless, like flowering plants, they were able to outrun the flood).

A very good point.