Proof of Creation?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes but once it is uplifted and the sediment layers are up in the air on mountains they are subject to erosion. That erosion is normally greater being up so high and subject to gravity. So those sediment layers should be eroded away after millions of years at the rate of erosion on mountains.

Different mountains are different ages, you know.

 

[stevevw]

Different mountains are different ages, you know.

I understand that. But if I investigated some old mountains I would more than likely find they still had sediments on top of them. Such as Mt Everest the highest mountain in the world. It has a sediment layer on its summit believe it or not. The mountain is about 60 million years old. You would think being at the summit where it will get the highest erosion rates that those sediments would have eroded away even millions of years ago.
The Geology of Mount Everest | Metageologist

 

[Split Rock]

I understand that. But if I investigated some old mountains I would more than likely find they still had sediments on top of them. Such as Mt Everest the highest mountain in the world. It has a sediment layer on its summit believe it or not. The mountain is about 60 million years old. You would think being at the summit where it will get the highest erosion rates that those sediments would have eroded away even millions of years ago.
The Geology of Mount Everest | Metageologist

And so... what would be left of the mountain? If the uplift rate is greater than the erosion rate, the mountain will grow taller. Its simple math.

 

[stevevw]

And so... what would be left of the mountain? If the uplift rate is greater than the erosion rate, the mountain will grow taller. Its simple math.

Yes we already went throught that. But even though this happens its still the top of the mountains that erode. Sp the sediment layers at the top erode away first and in some case nearly 1/2 the original mountain is eroded away. In the case of very old mountains just about the entire original mountains are eroded away. Yes they are replaced by new rocks being uplifted. But the old ones have gone including the sediment layers which are at the top. In other words those sediment layers on Mt Everest have been there at the surface for 60 million years and still havnt eroded away. Yet according to the rate of erosion's for mountains that should have gone plus even 3 times that or more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes we already went throught that. But even though this happens its still the top of the mountains that erode. Sp the sediment layers at the top erode away first and in some case nearly 1/2 the original mountain is eroded away. In the case of very old mountains just about the entire original mountains are eroded away. Yes they are replaced by new rocks being uplifted. But the old ones have gone including the sediment layers which are at the top. In other words those sediment layers on Mt Everest have been there at the surface for 60 million years and still havnt eroded away. Yet according to the rate of erosion's for mountains that should have gone plus even 3 times that or more.

The tops of mountains are usually granite, not sedimentary layers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes we already went throught that. But even though this happens its still the top of the mountains that erode. Sp the sediment layers at the top erode away first and in some case nearly 1/2 the original mountain is eroded away. In the case of very old mountains just about the entire original mountains are eroded away. Yes they are replaced by new rocks being uplifted. But the old ones have gone including the sediment layers which are at the top. In other words those sediment layers on Mt Everest have been there at the surface for 60 million years and still havnt eroded away. Yet according to the rate of erosion's for mountains that should have gone plus even 3 times that or more.

Reference?

 

[Split Rock]

Yes we already went throught that. But even though this happens its still the top of the mountains that erode. Sp the sediment layers at the top erode away first and in some case nearly 1/2 the original mountain is eroded away. In the case of very old mountains just about the entire original mountains are eroded away. Yes they are replaced by new rocks being uplifted. But the old ones have gone including the sediment layers which are at the top. In other words those sediment layers on Mt Everest have been there at the surface for 60 million years and still havnt eroded away. Yet according to the rate of erosion's for mountains that should have gone plus even 3 times that or more.

Are you under the impression that all sedimentary layers are on top? Most of the summit is limestone from the Ordovician, which means it is very old. It also means it was not the upper most layer when the mountain first started to form. It is, instead, what is left for us to see today. So no, it is not likely that the limestone at the summit of Mt Everest has been exposed for 60 million years as you are asserting (given the standard chronology).

 

[Split Rock]

The tops of mountains are usually granite, not sedimentary layers.

From its summit to the top of the Yellow Band, about 8,600 m (28,200 ft) above sea level, the top of Mount Everest consists of the Qomolangma Formation, which has also been designated as either the Everest Formation or Jolmo Lungama Formation. It consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded, Ordovician limestone inter layered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone. Gansser first reported finding microscopic fragments of crinoids in this limestone.[45] Later petrographic analysis of samples of the limestone from near the summit revealed them to be composed of carbonate pellets and finely fragmented remains of trilobites, crinoids, and ostracods. Other samples were so badly sheared and recrystallized that their original constituents could not be determined.
Mount Everest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

From its summit to the top of the Yellow Band, about 8,600 m (28,200 ft) above sea level, the top of Mount Everest consists of the Qomolangma Formation, which has also been designated as either the Everest Formation or Jolmo Lungama Formation. It consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded, Ordovician limestone inter layered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone. Gansser first reported finding microscopic fragments of crinoids in this limestone.[45] Later petrographic analysis of samples of the limestone from near the summit revealed them to be composed of carbonate pellets and finely fragmented remains of trilobites, crinoids, and ostracods. Other samples were so badly sheared and recrystallized that their original constituents could not be determined.
Mount Everest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK thanks for that. The summit then, dates from the Ordovician period, or about 450 million years ago plus or minus 30 million years. (After all, what's a mere 30 million years in this context?)

 

[Split Rock]

OK thanks for that. The summit then, dates from the Ordovician period, or about 450 million years ago plus or minus 30 million years. (After all, what's a mere 30 million years in this context?)

Right. Steve seems to think that all sedimentary rock is on top of the column, and therefore it should have eroded away after millions of years. This is not the case. The fact that it is so old, indicates it was not at the top of the column.. instead it has been exposed after the higher layers eroded away.

 

[Kylie]

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.

ALso bear in mind that layers of sedimentary rock can be covered by layers of a rock that is more resistant to weathering. Thus, any weathering of the sedimentary layers will only happen AFTER the higher, more resistant layers have eroded away, which could take millions of years.

 

[stevevw]

Are you under the impression that all sedimentary layers are on top? Most of the summit is limestone from the Ordovician, which means it is very old. It also means it was not the upper most layer when the mountain first started to form. It is, instead, what is left for us to see today. So no, it is not likely that the limestone at the summit of Mt Everest has been exposed for 60 million years as you are asserting (given the standard chronology).

The picture I posted on that link showed the sediment layer at the top part of the mountain. It was only a small bit and the rest of the mountain was granite and metamorphic rock as you can see in this picture. So it looks like the sediments are at the top fraction. I thought when the ocean floor or land near the plate collisions are uplifted they take the land straight up and therefore the sediment layers are taken up and become the outer layer of the top of the mountains. Erosion then works on taking the outer surface away through water, wind and ice and gravity does the rest. So after millions of years the mountain is eroded away and replaced by more uplifted rocks from beneath.

This link shows the erosion rate for Mt Everest. It seems after 60 million years Mt Everest would have easily lost its sediment layers and almost completely eroded away the original mountain. If it wasn't for uplift Mt Everest would be a midget.
Disappearing Mountains ~ Hudson Valley Geologist

 

[Split Rock]

The picture I posted on that link showed the sediment layer at the top part of the mountain. It was only a small bit and the rest of the mountain was granite and metamorphic rock as you can see in this picture. So it looks like the sediments are at the top fraction. I thought when the ocean floor or land near the plate collisions are uplifted they take the land straight up and therefore the sediment layers are taken up and become the outer layer of the top of the mountains. Erosion then works on taking the outer surface away through water, wind and ice and gravity does the rest. So after millions of years the mountain is eroded away and replaced by more uplifted rocks from beneath.

This link shows the erosion rate for Mt Everest. It seems after 60 million years Mt Everest would have easily lost its sediment layers and almost completely eroded away the original mountain. If it wasn't for uplift Mt Everest would be a midget.
Disappearing Mountains ~ Hudson Valley Geologist

One more time.... the limestone at the top now was not at the top when the mountain uplifting started. It is very old, and was therefore underneath many other layers. It is now exposed because the upper layers have eroded away. As KTS indicated, those upper layers could well have been tougher than limestone as well, and took longer to erode.

I don't see why you still claim this is a problem.

 

[stevevw]

One more time.... the limestone at the top now was not at the top when the mountain uplifting started. It is very old, and was therefore underneath many other layers. It is now exposed because the upper layers have eroded away. As KTS indicated, those upper layers could well have been tougher than limestone as well, and took longer to erode.

I don't see why you still claim this is a problem.

So how far down would you say that lime stone was. I am assuming that the limestone was at the base of a sediment layer that had built up over time. Those sediment layers may have been at the bottom of the ocean or land near the coast. They must have been mighty thick.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right. Steve seems to think that all sedimentary rock is on top of the column, and therefore it should have eroded away after millions of years. This is not the case. The fact that it is so old, indicates it was not at the top of the column.. instead it has been exposed after the higher layers eroded away.

I keep asking him where the eroded material goes. It seems that he hasn't considered that eroded material moves downhill and covers up older sediment, building a taller sedimentary column in that spot. He may be under the mistaken impression that the idealized geologic column is actually real, and global.

 

[Split Rock]

So how far down would you say that lime stone was. I am assuming that the limestone was at the base of a sediment layer that had built up over time. Those sediment layers may have been at the bottom of the ocean or land near the coast. They must have been mighty thick.

Its hard to say how far down they were... I am not a geologist mind you. Current theory indicates the creation of metamorphic rock during the ongoing collision creating the mountains in question. Metamorphic rock is much tougher than sedimentary rock. This is from the Wikipedia article:

Mount Everest consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that have been faulted southward over continental crust composed of Archean granulites of the Indian Plate during the Cenozoic collision of India with Asia. Current interpretations argue that the Qomolangma and North Col formations consist of marine sediments that accumulated within the continental shelf of the northern, passive continental margin of India prior to its collision with Asia. The Cenozoic collision of India with Asia subsequently deformed and metamorphosed these strata as it thrust them southward and upward.[49][50] The Rongbuk Formation consists of a sequence of high-grade metamorphic and granitic rocks that were derived from the alteration of high-grade metasedimentary rocks. During the collision of India with Asia, these rocks were thrust downward and to the north as they were overridden by other strata; heated, metamorphosed, and partially melted at depths of over 15 to 20 kilometres (9.3 to 12.4 mi) below sea level; and then forced upward to surface by thrusting towards the south between two major detachments.[51]​

 

[stevevw]

Its hard to say how far down they were... I am not a geologist mind you. Current theory indicates the creation of metamorphic rock during the ongoing collision creating the mountains in question. Metamorphic rock is much tougher than sedimentary rock. This is from the Wikipedia article:

Mount Everest consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that have been faulted southward over continental crust composed of Archean granulites of the Indian Plate during the Cenozoic collision of India with Asia. Current interpretations argue that the Qomolangma and North Col formations consist of marine sediments that accumulated within the continental shelf of the northern, passive continental margin of India prior to its collision with Asia. The Cenozoic collision of India with Asia subsequently deformed and metamorphosed these strata as it thrust them southward and upward.[49][50] The Rongbuk Formation consists of a sequence of high-grade metamorphic and granitic rocks that were derived from the alteration of high-grade metasedimentary rocks. During the collision of India with Asia, these rocks were thrust downward and to the north as they were overridden by other strata; heated, metamorphosed, and partially melted at depths of over 15 to 20 kilometers (9.3 to 12.4 mi) below sea level; and then forced upward to surface by thrusting towards the south between two major detachments.[51]​

As it says in the wiki article the Marine sediments that accumulated within the continental shelf of India prior to the collision with Asia. So those sediments on the Qomolangma and North Col formations are the marine sediments and they have been pushed up to the top of Mt Everest. So if those sediments are still on the mountain after 60 million years how deep do you think the sediment layers were. Considering that they reckon the mountain has been eroded down quite a way you would think they had to be pretty thick. What would be the thickest sediment layers around to still allow some sediment to be up there on the mountain. I understand that the sediments are not the surface sediments anymore and have been eroded down a bit. But surely after 60 million years it would have eroded them completely away.

The article says that Everest would completely erode away in 88,480 million years at the minimum rate of erosion of 0.1mms per year.
Geologists have studied rates of erosion in the Himalaya (see this paper, for example) and even low rates of erosion are around 0.1 millimeters per year (mm/yr).

So in 60 million years how much of Everest would have eroded away. If the mountain is 8,848 meters high it should lose over 1/2 even if we allow for variations. So thats about 5,000 meters eroded away off the top of the original mountain that was raised up in the air. So would the sediment layer take up a bit over half the mountain. Thats also allowing for the continued uplift of the mountain which doesn't make any difference to what is lost from the original mountain. Maybe there is another aspect to erosion that I'm not getting, but on face value I cant see how any sediments should be left.

 

[Loudmouth]

As it says in the wiki article the Marine sediments that accumulated within the continental shelf of India prior to the collision with Asia. So those sediments on the Qomolangma and North Col formations are the marine sediments and they have been pushed up to the top of Mt Everest. So if those sediments are still on the mountain after 60 million years how deep do you think the sediment layers were. Considering that they reckon the mountain has been eroded down quite a way you would think they had to be pretty thick. What would be the thickest sediment layers around to still allow some sediment to be up there on the mountain. I understand that the sediments are not the surface sediments anymore and have been eroded down a bit. But surely after 60 million years it would have eroded them completely away.

The article says that Everest would completely erode away in 88,480 million years at the minimum rate of erosion of 0.1mms per year.
Geologists have studied rates of erosion in the Himalaya (see this paper, for example) and even low rates of erosion are around 0.1 millimeters per year (mm/yr).

So in 60 million years how much of Everest would have eroded away. If the mountain is 8,848 meters high it should lose over 1/2 even if we allow for variations. So thats about 5,000 meters eroded away off the top of the original mountain that was raised up in the air. So would the sediment layer take up a bit over half the mountain. Thats also allowing for the continued uplift of the mountain which doesn't make any difference to what is lost from the original mountain. Maybe there is another aspect to erosion that I'm not getting, but on face value I cant see how any sediments should be left.

The webiste that is being linked to refers to this paper:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~bodo/pdf/gabet08_modern_erosion_himalaya.pdf

In the paper, they discuss how the amount of monsoonal precipitation erodes the Himalayas. Is Mt. Everest being eroded by monsoons? Seems like it is pretty dry to me, and not prone to even having liquid water.

 

[Split Rock]

As it says in the wiki article the Marine sediments that accumulated within the continental shelf of India prior to the collision with Asia. So those sediments on the Qomolangma and North Col formations are the marine sediments and they have been pushed up to the top of Mt Everest. So if those sediments are still on the mountain after 60 million years how deep do you think the sediment layers were. Considering that they reckon the mountain has been eroded down quite a way you would think they had to be pretty thick. What would be the thickest sediment layers around to still allow some sediment to be up there on the mountain. I understand that the sediments are not the surface sediments anymore and have been eroded down a bit. But surely after 60 million years it would have eroded them completely away.

The article says that Everest would completely erode away in 88,480 million years at the minimum rate of erosion of 0.1mms per year.
Geologists have studied rates of erosion in the Himalaya (see this paper, for example) and even low rates of erosion are around 0.1 millimeters per year (mm/yr).

So in 60 million years how much of Everest would have eroded away. If the mountain is 8,848 meters high it should lose over 1/2 even if we allow for variations. So thats about 5,000 meters eroded away off the top of the original mountain that was raised up in the air. So would the sediment layer take up a bit over half the mountain. Thats also allowing for the continued uplift of the mountain which doesn't make any difference to what is lost from the original mountain. Maybe there is another aspect to erosion that I'm not getting, but on face value I cant see how any sediments should be left.

That depends very much on what type of rock layers were above the current exposed layers. You will also note from the diagram you posted that there isn't much sedimentary rock left on the upper portion of the mountain.

 

[stevevw]

The webiste that is being linked to refers to this paper:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~bodo/pdf/gabet08_modern_erosion_himalaya.pdf

In the paper, they discuss how the amount of monsoonal precipitation erodes the Himalayas. Is Mt. Everest being eroded by monsoons? Seems like it is pretty dry to me, and not prone to even having liquid water.

Maybe but the link I attached also states the minimum rate of erosion at 0.01mm. Surely the minimum rate can be applied to Mt Everest. 0.01mm of erosion a year is nothing. The wind up on the mountain could account for that alone. All mountains and all of earth is subject to erosion. It maybe that in the past when it wasn't so high and the weather was different it was subject to water. I just cant see it not being eroded at all. Even if you give it periods of no erosion it still accounts for a fair amount of erosion that could take away the thickness of any sediments at the top of the mountain. Unless sediments are very thick and from what I understand on average they are not very thick.