Where is the evidence demonstrating tens of millions of years of erosion?

[@erosion_of_earth]

Great Job! Love the videos, keep them coming please.

[@CreationUnfolding]

Thank you!!

[@BeyondAstronomy-bq1cs]

I just wanted to say thank you for the work that you do. I read your book back in the summer of 2023 and it really was paradigm shifting for me. While I believe that the earth's biosphere is thousands of years old, your book really helped me not be so dogmatic about how much of the flood is represented in the geological record. I thought you made a compelling case for your position using both logic and scripture. I realize there are so many more questions to answer and I am looking forward to see how young earth creation research evolves in the future.

[@CreationUnfolding]

I appreciate the feedback, thank you!

[@THelble]

Several times, the video uses a 5 million number for the time gap between the Hermit and the Coconino. I don't know of a current Coconino researcher (in conventional geology) who uses that number. It appears that the 5 million number derives from the fact that some geologic column graphics show one number for the age of the Hermit, and a number that is 5 million lower for the Coconino. But those numbers don't mean that the two formations were deposited only on those two dates with no deposition occurring between the two. A gap on the order of hundreds of thousands of years seems to reflect the current understanding. Accommodation space is the guiding geologic principle which explains the boundary between the Coconino and the Hermit. After the Hermit was deposited very close to sea level, there was no space for the abundant sands blowing in from the north to accumulate in the region where the Grand Canyon is today. This is because the crust there was no downward deformation in the crust there. The sands just blew across the Hermit in the region where the Grand Canyon is today, probably sand blasting away at the surface for a hundred thousand years or more. Further south, the crust was deformed downward, which provided space for the sands to accumulate as the Schnebly Hill Fm. This downward deformation in the vicinity of Sedona, AZ can be seen in stratigraphic cross sections based on extensive field surveys. This video by Grand Canyon guide Wayne Ranney explains the principle of accommodation space: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqCtdXWfYrykfNE

[@nickvandernet]

Brilliant. Thank you!

[@CreationUnfolding]

Thanks Rusty!

[@johntandy8918]

How old is the earth and what shape is it?

[@CreationUnfolding]

About 8000 years and round.

[@jamesthedog7783]

​@@CreationUnfoldingcome on man, you can't seriously believe that. I mean you got the shape right, but you missed the mark on the age. AronRa is a content creator on this platform with all of the evidence you will ever need. Im thinking it was about six months ago he put out a video on this subject, but I'm not sure. Respectfully disagreeing, but the information is out there if you want to find it

[@nickvandernet]

​@@jamesthedog7783you do realise this man's credentials, right?

[@oColt45o]

Your source is clown shoes.​@@jamesthedog7783

[@Fordry]

​@@jamesthedog7783Aron Ra is not the bastion of truth you seem to think he is. I've absolutely shredded a couple of his videos on my own before. I looked, I didn't see any video about this subject from him. What argument can you actually make against this point? Have you been to the Grand Canyon? I have several times including a weeklong raft trip through the canyon this past summer. The layers are flat stacked on each other over and over and over. I've driven around much of the southwest and seen exposed layers. Everywhere they're flat stacked over and over. There are places that have slumps, or erosion, or whatever, sure. But those are the exception, uncommon. There's more to this Coconino Sandstone layer thing than presented here. Multiple evidences that it was deposited immediately with the layer below it, the Hermit. The most striking is the places where there is a band of hermit shale material ABOVE a band of Coconino Sandstone material. How does that happen if 5 million years separate them? There's also the sand injectites of the Coconino that go down into the Hermit which require circumstances that could only have existed relatively briefly after the hermit was deposited and the source of the injectites is known, the movement of the bright angel fault which the mainstream claims happened roughly a couple hundred million years later... But if that much time passed the injectites wouldn't exist. The evidence is striking here.

[@rockroll9761]

I agree. Google Earth the Pacific Ocean and you'll see how much of the planet it takes up . One of five oceans

[@howardf5264]

Happy New Year! As you well know, deep incisions, called "incised valleys" are very common at unconformities around the world, just not so much at the Grand Canyon. These incisions are well studied and widely published. They commonly have map patterns that are the same as river valleys with tributaries, and are filled with sediment identical to modern river sediment. They are very important as petroleum reservoirs, so there are hundreds of subsurface published examples. They are not common at the Grand Canyon. There are a few possible reasons. One is a process of pediment formation. This is a long term erosional feature by fluvial processes that creates a nearly flat, gently sloping surface (less than 1 degree.). See Pelletier, J.D., 2010. How do pediments form?: A numerical modeling investigation with comparison to pediments in southern Arizona, USA. Bulletin, 122(11-12), pp.1815-1829. Another explanation is a dry climate without rivers. There is a lot of evidence in the Grand Canyon succession for dry climates (desert dunes for example). Without rivers there will be no scours. Major deserts today have almost no rivers. A third explanation is removal by wave ravinement during transgression (basically as sea level rises, waves scour, over time, to a common depth). Though this would only remove shallow river incisions. The challenge for Creationists is to explain why river incisions are so common at unconformities in so many other areas. And not just a few but many hundreds have been documented and what is published is a tiny fraction of what has been found. How and when did they form?

[@mmaimmortals]

The deep channel incisions you're describing are not difficult to explain. They are the product of channelized flow following waning sheet flow. They can be part of the end of the Flood or they can be post Flood. Those types of channels can easily be replicated in tank experiments, sedimentation and all.

[@howardf5264]

@@mmaimmortals Thanks. I would love to see the flume experiment results that duplicate river channels. However, the presence of the channels is just the beginning. Consider these points: 1. The valleys are preserved throughout the geologic column, not just near the end. 2, The valley fills have within them sediments and sedimentary structures identical to modern river bars, and very different from sediment deposited by other processes. 3. Commonly the fills lack marine fossils are are packed with terrestrial fossils. 4. They are commonly associated with rooted horizons and deeply-weather soils. 5. Some actually occur below sea level. There are well-documented valley fills 1 to 2 miles below sea level. The mainstream explanation is that they were above sea level but sank gradually due to sediment loading causing subsidence. 6. There is no evidence for the sheetfloods you mention. Sheetflood are supercritical (Froude number over 1) and this would result in supercritical sedimentary structures. Where do you see this? I look forward to your response. Howard

[@mmaimmortals]

@@howardf5264 Engineers (those who don't concern themselves with deep time or origins stories) run flume and tank experiments all the time. It's an integral part of civil engineering. The grand irony that defenders of deep time seem to miss completely is that there is no way to experimentally replicate millions of years - or its effects. Anything that can happen within days or weeks or even a handful of years can be experimentally replicated in some way much of the time. 1) Valleys throughout the geologic column is irrelevant. Water and debris flows can carve channels through soil and rock subaqueously as well. The Flood account is not a story of filling up with water and then moving things around. It's a matter of water moving like water does: in wave form, coming in and out as long as it is on the planet. 2) Depositional characters are highly dependent on a wide variety of parameters. Usually when people make claims like this to "refute" the Biblical history of the Flood, they have a fake version of what the global Flood was or was supposed to do that no body believes in. 3) Fossils present are a function of where the water and the organisms came from, not a function of time per se. The Flood is an account of both land and marine creatures being directly affected. 4) I've read literature on "rooted horizons" and "deeply-weathered soils". It's not what most people think it is. The actual physical evidence for alleged insitu roots is severely lacking in any way that would be meaningful to refuting a global flood. Roots and root systems can be transported en mass, but the actual sites studied that are earlier in the relative sequencing have distinct characteristics that defy insitu growth claims. Such as flat, abrupt transitions from one type of sediment to a completely different type with no hint of the passage of time, both immediately above and immediately below alleged root systems, not to mention abrupt transitions to the root units as well. 5) See # 1. Besides that, continental movement is part of the global Flood dynamic. Multiple actions were happening simultaneously. 6) The evidence for sheet (water) flow is ubiquitous. Virtually every cross section of sedimentary rock that can be observed has distinct characteristics of laminar flow. The exceptions would be what was described above: runoff transitioning from sheet to channel flow. If deep time were true, the various layers would have been carved by small scale erosion to such an extent that the sediments would have been homogenized over that many millions of years. But they are still very much distinct and laminar in stark appearance. Use of Froude numbers is a stylized math model that roughly describes fluid flow under specific conditions. It's also highly susceptible to scaling errors. There are **general** rules in engineering for scaling models in fluid dynamics, but with or without them, it is still only math. That's why engineers actually do flume and tank experiments.

[@howardf5264]

@@mmaimmortals I will respond in the same order as your excellent comments. Geologists also run lots of flume experiments. And they can be designed to similate long periods of time by scaling the processes down to small sizes. I won’t go into all the physics of why this works, but the details are widely published. And we run numerical models in computers that can simulate thousands of years of sedimentation and erosion. 1. Subaqueous scouring of channels by turbidity currents and debris flows are well understood and do not create features that look like river valleys. And the sedimentology of the deposits is completely different. Any competent geologists can immediately tell the difference between an incision created by subaqueous marine processes versus rivers. 2. Using sedimentology of how sand is deposited, we can extract from sand bodies the direction, velocity, and approximate depth of the flowing water. And there are also sorts of other indications of river deposits versus any other process. I would love to see your list of criteria for distinguishing a river deposit from a flood deposit. 3. Deposits that lack marine microfossils are tough to explain with a flood origin. Particularly when they are associated with other indicators of non-marine origin such as river architecture, soils, and roots (which are never found with subaqueous marine erosion. 4. Clearly some fossil trees are transported, but roots are well documented and very common in some areas. In the Cretaceous of Utah and Colorado I have observed roots extending down from nearly every coal. There is no way these were transported. And you did not address the observations of soils. It is not just that soils are observed in the ancient but the range of paleosol types matches the range of soils we see forming today in different conditions (such as wet and dry climates). 5. What specific mechanism would allow subduction sufficiently rapid to account for river deposits and soils to be buried several miles down? 6. Sheet floods are supercritical, but mostly not laminar. The evidence of the type of flow cannot be deduced from geologic cross sections. If you are referring to the preservation of laminae and cross bedding in the rocks, this does not indicate sheetfloods. We see this happening today in modern systems, such as modern river deltas. And again, geologists do lots of flume experiments and have been doing this since the 1960’s.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@howardf5264 Thank you for the detailed response. Your best bet would be to point me to an actual formation with high resolution pictures of the cross section that you believe contradicts the global Flood. As I understand your position on this, you are basically arguing that the Flood cannot have made the river channels you are describing because a) they are too low in the record (too early), b) they have clear paleosols that could not have formed during the Flood, c) they look just like river valleys known today. Feel free to clarify as needed. But you appear to have read right past what I actually wrote. Nevertheless, I'm having a really hard time imagining that you could even begin to make a proper refutation without knowing the specific mechanisms at play during the Flood. To be fair, most YEC's don't really have a good grasp of the mechanisms either. But virtually unanimously, the skeptics never do. "We see this happening today in modern systems, such as modern river deltas." This is case in point. There is a very obvious difference in scale between modern river deltas and what the geologic column actually contains. Not to mention that river beds tend to wander back and forth over time which would completely homogenize the soils and the sediments that they traverse. To your question on number 5: I'm not sure what you are calling subduction. Herein lies one of the major problems with the currently accepted model on plate techtonics. The currently accepted model states that subduction is the result (or the actual process) of cold slabs sinking into the mantle. Personally, I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are any physicists with an actual knowledge of material science that would endorse this idea. Finally, only due to a priori assumptions, you would likely not to want C14 date any of the root systems you think are insitu.

[@chrismessier7094]

i had to lol because a video on the same subject by Mark Champneys (Moment of truth) led me into a two month long series of comments with an atheist in the UK (Mtbee9)

[@Prometheus_Bound]

How does this differ from the great unconformity?

[@CreationUnfolding]

Hi there. See the linked video

[@Fordry]

The great unconformity is the major erosional boundary between what is mostly metamorphic rock and then the sedimentary layers. In the Grand Canyon the Tapeats Sandstone is that bottom sedimentary layer beneath which is the metamorphic layers and that boundary is what is called the great unconformity. The mainstream claims over a billion years of time is missing there. Creationists obviously have a different view of it, that it's the erosional surface from the flood, the stuff below having been there before the flood and what is above having been deposited during and after.

[@willemjanblom2268]

1. The Schnebly Hill Fm. does not necessarily show that there must be 5 Myr missing between the Hermit Fm. and the Coconino Fm., as all formations could have been formed diachronously. 2. Erosion does not always come in the form of gullies. The final stage of erosion before (marine) sedimentation can start again is usually peneplanation due to the lateral erosion of lowland rivers.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

Erosion may not always come in the form of gullies, but it does the vast majority of the time because of how fluid dynamics function. And to suggest that pretty much zero gullies, or differential erosion of any kind enough leave any evidence occured in even a million years, let alone the dozens, or hundreds of millions of years that any given lithified sequence is meant to represent is just such an immensely unrealistic suggestion.

[@willemjanblom2268]

@anthonypolonkay2681 It's not relevant what the most common form of erosion is, but which form of erosion is common right before a new stage of sedimentary deposition.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@willemjanblom2268 there's two problems with what you said. 1 is that the erosion type changing at the end of an epoc of time isn't about to erase all the digging that the millions of years of standard erosion caused. The 2nd problem is that there is no "new stage" of sedimentary deposition in great eons of time like that. If 3 feet of rock is supposed to represent like a million years or whatever is assigned to it, there is not sigular turn from one sediment to another. Which is itself a problem for assigning such great timescales to these layers. The clean breaks in-between the different sediments is not something that happens from standard gradual deposition. You can get it to happen from large scale catastrophic deposition, or large scale liquefaction, but not from the gradual normal deposition that occurs in any given enviorment.

[@CreationUnfolding]

Hi there. Keep in mind that it's the existence of the Schnebly Hill Fm. that caused geologists to insert the 5 million years in the gap in the first place. The formations in the Grand Canyon are thus dated accordingly. I didn't make that decision. Also, the floodplains (Hermit) and the desert (Coconino) were spatially extremely vast. Since the SHF fits in there somewhere, then we "know" that 5 million years supposedly exists at that contact at every location. You can't have a desert (lots and lots of heat required) forming around floodplains! The extreme climate does not allow for a diachronous interpretation. You are also describing a geomorphologically evolving model that definitely must have channels, and lots of of them, SOMEWHERE. Where are they? Thank you

[@howardf5264]

@@CreationUnfolding The relationship among these three formations is not nearly as well documented as you suggest. And you absolutely can have flood plains adjacent to a hot dry desert, for example the Nile river flood plain adjacent to the Sahara Desert. what reference are you using the get the 5 my?