----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Young Earth Evidence: was Re: WHAT'S NEW Friday, January 14, 2005
> The age of the Earth debate began with much shorter time scales. > Although Niagara Falls was not featured in the initial debate > I think it is good to consider because the history of the > falls is only about twice as old as biblical creation. > > The river flows over an escapement with harder rock on top and a softer rock > underneath. The water erodes the softer rock collapsing the top rock, so the > edge of the falls gradually moves up stream. Geologists estimate the falls > started 7 miles downstream, 12,000 years ago. I suspect that the estimate is based on an assumption that the flow rate over the falls has been historically equal to what is is now. If the flow rate was higher, then the erosion rate would be faster. Furthermore, erosion rates are not proportional to flow rates. To figure erosion rates to be proportional to the square of the flow rate is probably a more accurate assessment. With this proportionality, erosion rates based on a continuous average flow rate would be way less than what it would be with alternating periods of extreme drought and extreme flood. High flood rates beyond our paltry 250 yr historical records of observation for Niagra could be a major factor in over estimating the required time. Jeff
