revtec at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- 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 > >
I do not know how the figure of 12000 years was calculated, but it seems I was wrong about Niagara Falls not being featured in the initial debate: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp Harry
