Re: Mountains

From: <>
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 23:12:31 EDT

-- Joel Moore <> wrote:

Not sure what you're trying to say in your email. First you quote
Baumgardner approvingly, then you say 5 My is outside the scope of the
YEC timetable. So are you saying Baumgardner is right about the earth
being 6000 years old, or do you think he's wrong?

BP: I try to stay agnostic on the age of the earth. If I were to take a stand based on the evidence as I understand it at this time, I would say it is old. I was not intending to indicate my support of Baumgardner, I was merely quoting his quote regarding his source (Ollier and Pain). If I had the book, I would have quoted it directly and left Baumgardner out of the loop.

Baumgardner is right that some scientists think uplift in most of the
high mountain ranges (forgot the Sierra Nevada) has happened in last 5
million years. Other current thinking that he doesn't mention is that
there's also evidence that some of the mountains (Himalayas and Sierra
Nevada are the two ranges I know about) were uplifted more like 40 or
50 million years ago and then had another, significant uplift pulse in
the last 2-5 million years. Alternatively, much of the same evidence
can be interpreted to see that as global climate shifted into a more
severe icehouse, cold, glacially-dominated world, erosion increased
2-5 million years ago. This erosion increased the amount of sediment
deposited off-shore from the high mountain ranges. So this deposited
sediment has been read by some to mean the uplift increased, which
caused increased erosion rates, and read by others to mean a change in
climate that cause increased erosion rates.

BP: That's very interesting. Thanks for the info., Joel. I would have to go with the icehouse theory; it boggles the mind to think that India could "pulse" into Asia (creating an increase in the uplift rate) while being dragged along on a mantle convection current.

So back to your email and quotation of Baumgardner, I fail to see how
a debate over how to best read the geologic evidence in order to
ascertain what happened 2-5 million years ago gives Baumgardner reason
to believe in a young earth. Baumgardner misrepresents the
conversations between "theorists" (I'm not sure who he'd be talking
about here) and geomorphologists.

BP: I'd like to withhold judgement until I get the book and read it for myself.

I'm also not sure what Baumgardner
is referring to when he writes of the uniformitarian expection. Such
an expectation is not present in the minds of any geologists or earth
scientists that I've interacted with.

BP: Uniformitarian in the sense that the Himalayas are 50 million years old instead of only 5 my old. If they are only 5 my old, and if India has plowed into Asia 2000 km, give or take 800 km [Pinter and Brandon, Scientific American, April 1997, p 78], then the velocity of the collision would be 0.4 m/yr instead of 4 to 5 cm/yr. (average velocity, not uniform velocity).


Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit to sign up today!
Received on Sun Apr 17 23:15:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 23:15:54 EDT