Old Earth & Young Earth Creationism

Originally posted by KellyJay
"why don't you peruse the geology of the two places, "

How much time and as I said there are lots of rivers...why don't we see canyons like that
everywhere. You are assuming that the rivers always flowed where they are now and
under the conditions they currently have as well. For a long periods of time that seems to
be quite the assumption as well.

Er, don't you know the difference between rivers flowing over effluent sediment and rivers flowing over bedrock? Water flowing over sand glued together V solid granite or some other hard rock?
You don't see a difference in erosion rates? Where a river flowing over sand glued together is going to preferentially attack the 'glue'?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Changes like the Grand Canyon, I often wonder if what people believe about that place is
true than why isn't there several of those things everywhere where large rivers flow? The
hoops people jump through to make it sound reasonable doesn't always sound
reasonable to me. Why isn't the Mississippi in a huge Canyon through the Midwest, or
any of the othe ...[text shortened]... planet? The method would hold true if it were every
where that water flowed wouldn't you think?

It's mostly to do with elevation. If the source is higher than the end then the water will try to wear away rock and earth to level out the land with its end point. The softer the rock and bigger the elevation the more dramatic the results are, as can be seen in lots of amazing canyons from all around the globe.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
It's mostly to do with elevation. If the source is higher than the end then the water will try to wear away rock and earth to level out the land with its end point. The softer the rock and bigger the elevation the more dramatic the results are, as can be seen in lots of amazing canyons from all around the globe.

Actually the steepest canyons form when there is fairly hard rock either at the surface or throughout. This stops the sides from weathering down and creating a wide valley. You are correct about elevation being key. Faster flowing water moves larger stones and wears away the bottom of the river faster. The size of the river also counts.

The Mississippi doesn't have a canyon purely because of elevation. The river brings sediments from the hills and deposits them as fast as they are carried away. Dams can change the balance and affect how much sediment is being introduced.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually the steepest canyons form when there is fairly hard rock either at the surface or throughout. This stops the sides from weathering down and creating a wide valley. You are correct about elevation being key. Faster flowing water moves larger stones and wears away the bottom of the river faster. The size of the river also counts.

The Mississippi ...[text shortened]... are carried away. Dams can change the balance and affect how much sediment is being introduced.

The fact that the Mississippi flows slower than the Colorado also contributes to the lack of a canyon there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Er, don't you know the difference between rivers flowing over effluent sediment and rivers flowing over bedrock? Water flowing over sand glued together V solid granite or some other hard rock?
You don't see a difference in erosion rates? Where a river flowing over sand glued together is going to preferentially attack the 'glue'?

I see the difference and time would still wipe out anything that wasn't bedrock and eat away
at bedrock as well. Those rivers are flowing through more than bedrock so why are they
shaped the way they are? Erosion over millions of years would do quite the damage to the
banks of any river if that was how it all fell out.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see the difference and time would still wipe out anything that wasn't bedrock and eat away
at bedrock as well. Those rivers are flowing through more than bedrock so why are they
shaped the way they are? Erosion over millions of years would do quite the damage to the
banks of any river if that was how it all fell out.

So you are taking over where Hinds left off.

So you totally disregard all knowledge of geology in order to force everyone to believe the world is 6K years old. Good luck convincing anyone of that.

Why for instance, considering all the millions of meteor or asteroid strikes on the moon, has there been only one verified siting of a flash on the moon? Well two, since we saw one planned by crashing a probe onto the moon and a bunch of telescopes were watching and they saw a bit of a flash.

So flash noted around the year 900 AD and nothing anywhere else before or since and you should know the Chinese and Persians both had astronomers, of course no telescopes but they observed very well and they NEVER reported seeing flashes on the moon.

We know meteors and asteroids make flashes, we caused one with a probe at the end of it's useful life, deliberately crashing into the moon and the flash was recorded so we know there would be flashes if a meter hits the moon.

Doesn't it seem odd that therefore in your mythology, those strikes would have to have happened in just a few years but that would leave the moon too hot to touch yet a dozen people have tramped around on it without getting burned. If all those strikes had happened in just a few years the moon would be red hot and STILL red hot since radiation is a poor way to get rid of excess heat. That is a well known scientific fact.

So how does THAT scenario fit in your mythology?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are taking over where Hinds left off.

So you totally disregard all knowledge of geology in order to force everyone to believe the world is 6K years old. Good luck convincing anyone of that.

Why for instance, considering all the millions of meteor or asteroid strikes on the moon, has there been only one verified siting of a flash on the moon? ...[text shortened]... heat. That is a well known scientific fact.

So how does THAT scenario fit in your mythology?

Not disregarding anything simply pointing out that millions of years of water flowing would
leave several canyons if that was what caused them. I've not ever seen a moon strike with
an asteroid have you? I get you have theories on the numbers across some time line, but
theories are still what we are talking about correct? One planned crash doesn't make the
time line you are suggesting a positive without doubt events. A flash noted 900 AD could
have been anything or nothing, not exactly proof positive.

For all I know the bombardment of the moon happen on a cloudy night on the earth when
no one could have seen it and recorded it. Not knowing doesn't mean we can make it up
as we go and say this is how it happen, the correct answer is, "I don't know.".

Originally posted by sonhouse
The fact that the Mississippi flows slower than the Colorado also contributes to the lack of a canyon there.

Which is entirely a product of elevation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not disregarding anything simply pointing out that millions of years of water flowing would
leave several canyons if that was what caused them. I've not ever seen a moon strike with
an asteroid have you? I get you have theories on the numbers across some time line, but
theories are still what we are talking about correct? One planned crash doesn't make t ...[text shortened]... can make it up
as we go and say this is how it happen, the correct answer is, "I don't know.".

You have to use your imagination to visualize what that means. If all those strikes happened within a few years or months, the heat would have been tremendous. I assume you know about the kinetic energy formula, Ke=MV^2 mass times the velocity squared?

So a kilogram at 1 meter per second would have a kinetic energy of one Newton.

Now lets make that kilogram a typical meteor strike velocity, 40,000 meters per second.

Now you have a mass of only ONE kilogram doing 1.6 BILLION newtons of force. Now ramp that mass up to say 1 million Kg and you have now 1600 TRILLION Newtons of force.

Try to imagine just ONE strike like that. The one that hit in the Yucatan left a hole 180 miles across. That is just one strike, here on Earth. It got covered up through erosion. Try to use your imagination to think what effect that one strike would have had on humans if it had been say 5000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago. In 5000 years, for instance, the hole would still be a raw mass of hot rocks and in fact that strike left a pile of debris 700 feet deep in BURMUDA. Try to imagine the devastation that took place in the aftermath of that strike. Then, look at the moon. Look at the number of strikes where the yucatan strike would have been like a marshmallow hit. Some of the hits on the moon are a thousand miles across.

Don't just go, "I don't Know', try to imagine all that happening. And don't try to say, maybe it was cloudy, if all that happened and humans were around they for sure would have totally freaked out. SOME kind of record would have come down to us. The fact there is nothing but that one in 900 AD says all that happened WAY before humans were on the planet, like billions of years before.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have to use your imagination to visualize what that means. If all those strikes happened within a few years or months, the heat would have been tremendous. I assume you know about the kinetic energy formula, Ke=MV^2 mass times the velocity squared?

So a kilogram at 1 meter per second would have a kinetic energy of one Newton.

Now lets make that ki ...[text shortened]... 0 AD says all that happened WAY before humans were on the planet, like billions of years before.

So how does heat manifest itself in the vacuum of space at a distance among rock and
dirt? Tremendous or no if it has to be seen and understood it can be missed, if it can be
seen and those who saw it didn't write it down, then what?

I can say it was cloudy or anything else I want, it is no different than what you are doing
which is coming up with a possible reason, because WE DON'T KNOW!

Originally posted by KellyJay
So how does heat manifest itself in the vacuum of space at a distance among rock and
dirt? Tremendous or no if it has to be seen and understood it can be missed, if it can be
seen and those who saw it didn't write it down, then what?

I can say it was cloudy or anything else I want, it is no different than what you are doing
which is coming up with a possible reason, because WE DON'T KNOW!

Maybe you don't know but geologists who study such things know full well the amount of heat generated by asteroid strikes. What part of the statement that the strike in the yucutan that left 700 feet of debris near Burmuda did you not understand? Or just simply didn't believe? Can't you use your imagination to try to picture that level of destruction? What other form of energy would an asteroid 5 miles across turn into if it hit Earth doing 40,000 mph?

Come on, you can't figure that one out? Did you even look at the kinetic energy equation I gave you? The difference between a 1 kg rock hitting Earth at 1 meter per second vs the same rock hitting the Earth at 40,000 mph?

If you felt a bullet hole in a sheet of metal right after the bullet hits do you think it gets colder or hotter?

Would you look at this link about that very strike?

http://www.livescience.com/26933-chicxulub-cosmic-impact-dinosaurs.html

They don't think that strike alone killed the dinosaurs because there was a lot of other very bad stuff going on at the same time like volcanism on a massive scale. Bad time to be a dinosaur. Some species did live on past that set of disasters for maybe a million years but their time was up.