Time in Tibet

[grmorton]

Last weekend, I was in Lhasa, Tibet for a meeting and got a chance to see some of the country. We drove north of Lhasa to Shen Hu (holy lake). On the way there we passed this gorge. The elevation where I am when I took the photo is about 3800 m. On the other side of those mountains is the lake we were going to and that plain is 4700 meters. The pass we crossed was 17028 feet (5190 meters). I say this to note that the carving of the gorge had to be from that higher plain to this lower plain. But there isn't much precipitation and there isn't much water flow. In the foreground of the picture you can see the stream draining this valley and you can see that it isn't very big. Yet the gorge pictured below was carved by water (it is a v shaped valley and thus not a result of glaciers).

Because of the restricted water flow, the hardness of the rock and the 2000+ meters of erosion seen in this photo, this erosion would have had to have taken more than 5000 years to occur and so, here in Tibet we have evidence of an age of the earth greater than the YECs claim.

[Philosophickle]

Last weekend, I was in Lhasa, Tibet for a meeting and got a chance to see some of the country. We drove north of Lhasa to Shen Hu (holy lake). On the way there we passed this gorge. The elevation where I am when I took the photo is about 3800 m. On the other side of those mountains is the lake we were going to and that plain is 4700 meters. The pass we crossed was 17028 feet (5190 meters). I say this to note that the carving of the gorge had to be from that higher plain to this lower plain. But there isn't much precipitation and there isn't much water flow. In the foreground of the picture you can see the stream draining this valley and you can see that it isn't very big. Yet the gorge pictured below was carved by water (it is a v shaped valley and thus not a result of glaciers).

Because of the restricted water flow, the hardness of the rock and the 2000+ meters of erosion seen in this photo, this erosion would have had to have taken more than 5000 years to occur and so, here in Tibet we have evidence of an age of the earth greater than the YECs claim.

Wouldn't YEC's claim that a worldwide flood was the cause?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Last weekend, I was in Lhasa, Tibet for a meeting and got a chance to see some of the country. We drove north of Lhasa to Shen Hu (holy lake). On the way there we passed this gorge. The elevation where I am when I took the photo is about 3800 m. On the other side of those mountains is the lake we were going to and that plain is 4700 meters. The pass we crossed was 17028 feet (5190 meters). I say this to note that the carving of the gorge had to be from that higher plain to this lower plain. But there isn't much precipitation and there isn't much water flow. In the foreground of the picture you can see the stream draining this valley and you can see that it isn't very big. Yet the gorge pictured below was carved by water (it is a v shaped valley and thus not a result of glaciers).

Because of the restricted water flow, the hardness of the rock and the 2000+ meters of erosion seen in this photo, this erosion would have had to have taken more than 5000 years to occur and so, here in Tibet we have evidence of an age of the earth greater than the YECs claim.

Glenn, it is totally beyond my comprehension why you insist on making these same silly uniformatarian claims.

You are aware in the YEC Mt. Saint Helen's video that there is a gorge created by the volcano which has a tiny stream - and the stream was formed by the gorge instead of the gorge being formed by the stream - so that this same uniformatarian argument you are using (in essence) would be totally wrong in regard to that gorge near Mt. Saint Helens.

How can you be sure something similar isn't in play here - so that when that mountain was formed (either 6,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago) that the gorge wasn't already largely in place? How are you sure the gorge didn't form the stream instead of the stream forming the gorge? We have modern examples of this happening.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong as I cannot prove it either way; however, the uniformitarian thinking that rainfall and so forth haven't varied in the region over countless millenia is just downright silly, IMHO.

[Roy]

Glenn, it is totally beyond my comprehension why you insist on making these same silly uniformatarian claims.

You are aware in the YEC Mt. Saint Helen's video that there is a gorge created by the volcano which has a tiny stream - and the stream was formed by the gorge instead of the gorge being formed by the stream - so that this same uniformatarian argument you are using (in essence) would be totally wrong in regard to that gorge near Mt. Saint Helens.

How can you be sure something similar isn't in play here - so that when that mountain was formed (either 6,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago) that the gorge wasn't already largely in place?

Perhaps the rock the mountain is made of is sedimentary rather than igneous? Since Glennn describes it as extremely hard I doubt it's compacted volcanic ash as is found at Mt St Helens.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

Glenn, it is totally beyond my comprehension why you insist on making these same silly uniformatarian claims.

You are aware in the YEC Mt. Saint Helen's video that there is a gorge created by the volcano which has a tiny stream - and the stream was formed by the gorge instead of the gorge being formed by the stream - so that this same uniformatarian argument you are using (in essence) would be totally wrong in regard to that gorge near Mt. Saint Helens.

How can you be sure something similar isn't in play here - so that when that mountain was formed (either 6,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago) that the gorge wasn't already largely in place? How are you sure the gorge didn't form the stream instead of the stream forming the gorge? We have modern examples of this happening.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong as I cannot prove it either way; however, the uniformitarian thinking that rainfall and so forth haven't varied in the region over countless millenia is just downright silly, IMHO.

Did you realize that Mount Saint Helens represented recent soft unconsolidated volcanic deposits and The mountains of Tibet represent stratified hard formations of metamorphic, sedimentary rocks, and possibly igneous rocks.

[grmorton]

Wouldn't YEC's claim that a worldwide flood was the cause?

Yes, and the global flood is the cause of death and taxes as well.

The problem with the flood claim is that in order to erode the rock like this one must have one area that has water at a higher level than the other side. In a global flood, one doesn't have that. The water is the same level everywhere.

[grmorton]

Glenn, it is totally beyond my comprehension why you insist on making these same silly uniformatarian claims.

You are aware in the YEC Mt. Saint Helen's video that there is a gorge created by the volcano which has a tiny stream - and the stream was formed by the gorge instead of the gorge being formed by the stream - so that this same uniformatarian argument you are using (in essence) would be totally wrong in regard to that gorge near Mt. Saint Helens.

As others Roy and Frank have already pointed out to you, St. Helens is soft rock. Take a garden hose and a pile of sand. Let the water flow over the sand. The sand will erode quite rapidly. Now, do that for granite--much of that area is granite. Granite is hard. You can stand there with your garden hose pouring water for your lifetime and very little erosion will take place. People who believe the YEC nonsense don't seem to have the common sense to think in terms of garden hoses and sand piles.

How can you be sure something similar isn't in play here - so that when that mountain was formed (either 6,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago) that the gorge wasn't already largely in place? How are you sure the gorge didn't form the stream instead of the stream forming the gorge? We have modern examples of this happening.

I am sure because the rock is granite and is not volcanic ash--which is light and fluffy. Back when I was doing art, I used a form of volcanic ash for scupture. It was called featherstone because it was so light. One could shape it very rapidly (which is why the class used it because it made learning scupting much quicker than if we had been using marble). Why is it that you seem to think that all rocks are of the same hardness? That assumption underlies your impression of how erosion works.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong as I cannot prove it either way; however, the uniformitarian thinking that rainfall and so forth haven't varied in the region over countless millenia is just downright silly, IMHO.

I can pove it even if you can't. Stand there with your garden hose pointed at granite. See how much erosion happens in your lifetime. Indeed, that would be a preferable work to spouting YEC nonsense over the internet. Hook your self up to a webcam and let people see this experiment. That would be useful. (BTW didn't you claim you were not a YEC yet you keep spouting YEC arguments. I don't trust or believe people who claim that they aren't YEC but keep acting like one over and over spouting YEC arguments. They don't seem to be telling the truth.).

[grmorton]

Did you realize that Mount Saint Helens represented recent soft unconsolidated volcanic deposits and The mountains of Tibet represent stratified hard formations of metamorphic, sedimentary rocks, and possibly igneous rocks.

Most of this area is igneous rock. There are small pockets of layered sedimentary rocks but they are quite small and one can clearly see the layering from a long distance because the vegetation coverage is quite poor. The only native vegetation is a scrubby short grass. The only trees are those which humans have planted and care for.

I also examined the rocks in the streams where we stopped and they were igneous. There was both granite and gneiss. This area has been quite contorted structureally as I will show in another post.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Thanks for the clarification guys.

I wasn't aware that the layers in Tibet were always rock and that not a single one of the layers started to erode until the topmost layer had harderned into solid rock.

My bad.

[wattsr1]

Thanks for the clarification guys.

I wasn't aware that the layers in Tibet were always rock and that not a single one of the layers started to erode until the topmost layer had harderned into solid rock.

My bad.

Gidday MG,

Luv the hat.

You badly need to shave though.


Regards, Roland

[grmorton]

Here is another picture of a fault. One knows that the sequence of events is this: The sedimentary layers here was deposited on a relatively flat surface. We know this from the fact that the bedding does not noticably thicken or thin over the distance available for observation. If the surface upon which the sediments were deposited was tilted relative to sea level at the time of deposition, we would have the deeper part have thicker sediments than the shallow part.

Secondly, we know that the rocks were hard when the fault took place. There is little distortion along the fault plane (marked with the arrow). So, we know that there had to be a significant amount of time seen in the photo.

Step one--time to lay down the sediment.
Step two--time to harden the sediment into rock.
Step three--time to build up the forces which broke the rock.
Step four--time to actually move one rock over another--this can't be done in one step.
Step five--time to lift the rock 4 km above sealevel.
Step six--time to erode more than 2000 m of sediment AFTER this structural movement took place--I know this because I am in the valley looking at exposed rock above my head which rock would have once extended to where I stand. The average height of the mountains around me at this spot is about 5500 m. most of which must be removed to form this valley.

The elevation where I stand is between 3800 m and 3900 m above sealevel.