Proof of Creation?

[Loudmouth]

Sorry I got sidetracked. Well my point is from what I understand if the sediment layers are about as deep as the grand canyon on average as an example which are about 1800 meters deep. So erosion eats away sediment at about 4 or 5 mm a year on average.

Where do you think those eroded sediments go?

 

[Kylie]

Sorry I got sidetracked. Well my point is from what I understand if the sediment layers are about as deep as the grand canyon on average as an example which are about 1800 meters deep. So erosion eats away sediment at about 4 or 5 mm a year on average. So for a 20 million year old mountain that would take away about 1 meter every 200 years. So thats 5 meters in a 1000 years. Thats 500 meters in a 100,000 years. So where already up to nearly a third of that sediment layer gone in just 1/10 of a million years let alone 20 million years. So wouldn't the sediment layers on mountains be completely gone 10 times over by now even if you take into consideration they still push up from underneath. The tops still gets erodes. So after a while the whole mountain will disappear and be replaced with the rocks below it which are not sedimentary bit solid granite or igneous rocks.

You got a source for the claim that sediment layers are 1800 meters on average?

 

[stevevw]

Where do you think those eroded sediments go?

When it comes to a mountain I guess there are various ways it gets taken away. Water will find ways to carry it down the mountain. Wind will just take it off the mountain and somewhere down on the sides or further a field. Ice will break it up and take it down the sides of mountains. Water is probably the greatest method of erosion. The thing is the sediments are broken down again and taken away so the original layers that have fossils in them are broken up.

 

[stevevw]

You got a source for the claim that sediment layers are 1800 meters on average?

Thats the problem. I searched many sites for a thickness and none really go into any detail. Thats why I used the Grand Canyons depth with sediment layers as its a popular attraction which has many facts about it. I would say this depth is common on average as similar layers are found all over North America. Of course layers will vary and there may be deeper ones. Even if you doubled the thickness it still doesn't account for the rate of erosion on mountains.

The Grand Canyon is indeed a very big hole in the ground. It is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and more than a mile (6,000 feet / 1,800 meters) deep. It is the result of constant erosion by the Colorado River over millions of years.
Grand Canyon: Location, Formation & Facts

The erosion in the grand canyon has eaten through all the sediment layers and right down to the igneous rock at the bottom. But erosion on mountains is even greater because of the high altitude and gravity.

 

[Kylie]

Thats the problem. I searched many sites for a thickness and none really go into any detail. Thats why I used the Grand Canyons depth with sediment layers as its a popular attraction which has many facts about it. I would say this depth is common on average as similar layers are found all over North America. Of course layers will vary and there may be deeper ones. Even if you doubled the thickness it still doesn't account for the rate of erosion on mountains.

The Grand Canyon is indeed a very big hole in the ground. It is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and more than a mile (6,000 feet / 1,800 meters) deep. It is the result of constant erosion by the Colorado River over millions of years.
Grand Canyon: Location, Formation & Facts

The erosion in the grand canyon has eaten through all the sediment layers and right down to the igneous rock at the bottom. But erosion on mountains is even greater because of the high altitude and gravity.

So you are just guessing, aren't you?

You are just guessing that the Grand Canyon has the deepest layers of sedimentary rocks, and you are just guessing that all of the layers are on show.

Not off to a very good start. Come back with some actual data.

 

[stevevw]

So you are just guessing, aren't you?

You are just guessing that the Grand Canyon has the deepest layers of sedimentary rocks, and you are just guessing that all of the layers are on show.

Not off to a very good start. Come back with some actual data.

No the depth of sediments layers for the grand canyon is correct and from good sources. As I said some layers around the world would be deeper. But I also said even if you double the depth of the grand canyon erosion should have eaten away that depth anyway over millions of years.

OK I have found this which more or less cuts to the chase and states what I am talking about. With the rate of erosion not only should the sediment levels be gone but in some cases a whole mountains worth erodes away only to be replaced by new rocks from beneath. As it says below old mountains are eroded flat, so that would include the sediments layers as well.

Claim CD501:

On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now. At present rates of erosion, the continents would have been eroded to sea level in less than fifteen million years.Response:

1. Old mountain ranges are eroded flat. But there are also forces creating new mountains. For example, the Himalayas are still rising.
2. Present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history. (Erosion slows as mountains lose elevation.)
3. The reasoning behind this claim directly contradicts the reasoning behind the claim that volcanoes build too much material for an old earth.

CD501: Mountain erosion

http://creation.com/eroding-ages#r10

 

[Loudmouth]

No the depth of sediments layers for the grand canyon is correct and from good sources. As I said some layers around the world would be deeper. But I also said even if you double the depth of the grand canyon erosion should have eaten away that depth anyway over millions of years.

OK I have found this which more or less cuts to the chase and states what I am talking about. With the rate of erosion not only should the sediment levels be gone but in some cases a whole mountains worth erodes away only to be replaced by new rocks from beneath. As it says below old mountains are eroded flat, so that would include the sediments layers as well.

It also says new ones are made, and are currently growing.

Also, the eroded mountains produce sediments in the valleys which can then be uplifted again at a later date.

 

[Loudmouth]

When it comes to a mountain I guess there are various ways it gets taken away. Water will find ways to carry it down the mountain. Wind will just take it off the mountain and somewhere down on the sides or further a field. Ice will break it up and take it down the sides of mountains. Water is probably the greatest method of erosion. The thing is the sediments are broken down again and taken away so the original layers that have fossils in them are broken up.

Where do those sediments go? Where do they end up?

Are there places where sediments are increasing?

 

[stevevw]

Where do those sediments go? Where do they end up?

Are there places where sediments are increasing?

The sediments get taken from mountains and the land into deltas mainly but can also go into plains, swamp lands and basins. If you look at the Mississippi delta it is massive. Millions of tons of sediment is transported down the rivers and into the sea.
Recycling the Earth's Crust

 

[Loudmouth]

The sediments get taken from mountains and the land into deltas mainly but can also go into plains, swamp lands and basins. If you look at the Mississippi delta it is massive. Millions of tons of sediment is transported down the rivers and into the sea.
Recycling the Earth's Crust

What do they do when they settle out? Do they create more and more sediments and fossils?

 

[Kylie]

No the depth of sediments layers for the grand canyon is correct and from good sources. As I said some layers around the world would be deeper. But I also said even if you double the depth of the grand canyon erosion should have eaten away that depth anyway over millions of years.

OK I have found this which more or less cuts to the chase and states what I am talking about. With the rate of erosion not only should the sediment levels be gone but in some cases a whole mountains worth erodes away only to be replaced by new rocks from beneath. As it says below old mountains are eroded flat, so that would include the sediments layers as well.

Claim CD501:

On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now. At present rates of erosion, the continents would have been eroded to sea level in less than fifteen million years.Response:

1. Old mountain ranges are eroded flat. But there are also forces creating new mountains. For example, the Himalayas are still rising.
2. Present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history. (Erosion slows as mountains lose elevation.)
3. The reasoning behind this claim directly contradicts the reasoning behind the claim that volcanoes build too much material for an old earth.

CD501: Mountain erosion

http://creation.com/eroding-ages#r10

Did you even read that before cutting and pasting, because it doesn't support your argument at all.

You made two claims:

1. Only 1800 meters of sedimentary rock has ever been laid down
2. The entire depth of sedimentary rock has been exposed in the cliff in the grand canyon

What you posted doesn't support EITHER of those claims.

Try again.

 

[stevevw]

Did you even read that before cutting and pasting, because it doesn't support your argument at all.

You made two claims:

1. Only 1800 meters of sedimentary rock has ever been laid down
2. The entire depth of sedimentary rock has been exposed in the cliff in the grand canyon

What you posted doesn't support EITHER of those claims.

Try again.

I dont understand what your point is. Remember the point was can sediment layers be eroded from the tops of mountains. The grand Canyon is not a mountain to start with. I was using that as an example of how thick sediment layers can be. The canyon is about 1800 meters deep and parts do go down to the igneous rocks below the sediments. But with mountains the erosion is stronger/quicker as it is elevated. The link states that a mountains worth of erosion can happen over millions of years. But when the mountain is growing (being pushed up through plate movements) it will continue to be high as it replaces the lost rocks through erosion. So mountains lose more than the sediment thickness through erosion over time if they can lose a mountains worth of rocks. In other words mountains lose way more sediments than the depth of the grand canyon. They will erode beyond the depth of the canyons sediments through to the igneous rocks and then some more to completely erode the mountain away. If it wasn't fro the fact that Mountains are growing then they would completely erode off the face of the earth. Mountains have eroded off the face of the earth in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont understand what your point is. Remember the point was can sediment layers be eroded from the tops of mountains. The grand Canyon is not a mountain to start with. I was using that as an example of how thick sediment layers can be.

I already cited papers that discussed the erosion rates of mountains, and it fits in just fine with mountains being 10's of millions of years old.

Interestingly enough, part of the Rocky Mountains are formed from older mountains that eroded away:

The geology of the Rocky Mountains is that of a discontinuous series of mountain ranges with distinct geological origins. Collectively these make up the Rocky Mountains, a mountain system that stretches from Canada through central New Mexico and which is part of the great mountain system known as the North American Cordillera.

The rocks making up the mountains were formed before the mountains were raised. The cores of the mountain ranges are in most places formed of pieces of continental crust that are over one billion years old. In the south, an older mountain range was formed 300 million years ago, then eroded away. The rocks of that older range were reformed into the Rocky Mountains.
Geology of the Rocky Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

As the wiki page indicates, these mountains are made up of continental crust which is harder stuff than sedimentary rocks like sandstones.

 

[Kylie]

I dont understand what your point is. Remember the point was can sediment layers be eroded from the tops of mountains. The grand Canyon is not a mountain to start with. I was using that as an example of how thick sediment layers can be. The canyon is about 1800 meters deep and parts do go down to the igneous rocks below the sediments. But with mountains the erosion is stronger/quicker as it is elevated. The link states that a mountains worth of erosion can happen over millions of years. But when the mountain is growing (being pushed up through plate movements) it will continue to be high as it replaces the lost rocks through erosion. So mountains lose more than the sediment thickness through erosion over time if they can lose a mountains worth of rocks. In other words mountains lose way more sediments than the depth of the grand canyon. They will erode beyond the depth of the canyons sediments through to the igneous rocks and then some more to completely erode the mountain away. If it wasn't fro the fact that Mountains are growing then they would completely erode off the face of the earth. Mountains have eroded off the face of the earth in the past.

My point is that we can't assume that all sedimentary rocks MUST have eroded away.

 

[stevevw]

My point is that we can't assume that all sedimentary rocks MUST have eroded away.

I would have thought that after millions of years the sedimentary layers on mountains would have eroded away. The layers around the grand canyon will still be here because they are lower to the ground and dont suffer from the greater erosion on top of mountains. Gravity tends to bring everything down off the mountain and years of rain, ice and wind that will break it up and transport it down. The testimony of water is seen in the Grand Canyon. I dont think its an assumption. If the maths are right with the erosion rate then it is calculated correctly that all sedimentary layers will disappear from erosion on top of mountains over millions of years.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . If the maths are right with the erosion rate then it is calculated correctly that all sedimentary layers will disappear from erosion on top of mountains over millions of years.

Don't just say that, show us the math!

 

[Kylie]

I would have thought that after millions of years the sedimentary layers on mountains would have eroded away. The layers around the grand canyon will still be here because they are lower to the ground and dont suffer from the greater erosion on top of mountains. Gravity tends to bring everything down off the mountain and years of rain, ice and wind that will break it up and transport it down. The testimony of water is seen in the Grand Canyon. I dont think its an assumption. If the maths are right with the erosion rate then it is calculated correctly that all sedimentary layers will disappear from erosion on top of mountains over millions of years.

They are still there because they have not been weathered. Only the outer layer is actually weathered away. The deeper layers are protected by the layers above. The rate of weathering depends on many conditions, such as the strength of the weathering mechanism (if it rains every day it will weather faster than if it is mostly dry, areas with high winds will weather faster than sheltered areas, etc) and the strength of the rock layers themselves.

 

[stevevw]

They are still there because they have not been weathered. Only the outer layer is actually weathered away. The deeper layers are protected by the layers above. The rate of weathering depends on many conditions, such as the strength of the weathering mechanism (if it rains every day it will weather faster than if it is mostly dry, areas with high winds will weather faster than sheltered areas, etc) and the strength of the rock layers themselves.

Fair enough, I just think that after millions and millions of years erosion would have worn them away. There maybe some mountains that are younger that havnt been affected as much.

 

[SkyWriting]

I dont understand what your point is. Remember the point was can sediment layers be eroded from the tops of mountains. The grand Canyon is not a mountain to start with. I was using that as an example of how thick sediment layers can be. The canyon is about 1800 meters deep and parts do go down to the igneous rocks below the sediments. But with mountains the erosion is stronger/quicker as it is elevated. The link states that a mountains worth of erosion can happen over millions of years. But when the mountain is growing (being pushed up through plate movements) it will continue to be high as it replaces the lost rocks through erosion. So mountains lose more than the sediment thickness through erosion over time if they can lose a mountains worth of rocks. In other words mountains lose way more sediments than the depth of the grand canyon. They will erode beyond the depth of the canyons sediments through to the igneous rocks and then some more to completely erode the mountain away. If it wasn't fro the fact that Mountains are growing then they would completely erode off the face of the earth. Mountains have eroded off the face of the earth in the past.

What I find, in favor of a massive flood, is that places like the grand Canyon even exist.
What I would expect is that lower layers would be much more compacted and resistant to erosion.

As layers, from whatever source, are laid down, I'd expect the lowest layers to be harder
and resistant to erosion. But what I see, when I have been to the canyon, is all the layers
of pretty much equal "toughness."

Here and there you will find a "tough" layer that holds out better than layers under it.
Niagara falls is an example of the lower layers being weaker than the top. But over time,
I'd expect the lowest layers to be the hardest rock, as least there should be many clear
examples of broad flat rivers hitting an impenetrable layer.

Instead, there are deep fissures with more vertical walls, which suggest all the layers
were laid down "at one time" and all having equal resistance to erosion.

I've never heard an explanation for the lower layers not being harder.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . But what I see, when I have been to the canyon, is all the layers
of pretty much equal "toughness." . . .

Even the sandstone layers?