They've also determined that the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. That's twice as fast as previously thought. A growth rate of 2.4 in/6.1cm per year doesn't sound like very much. But, if you think about it, that means in the last 26,000 years the Himalayans have risen almost a mile into the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere!
PersianPaladin wrote:They've also determined that the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. That's twice as fast as previously thought. A growth rate of 2.4 in/6.1cm per year doesn't sound like very much. But, if you think about it, that means in the last 26,000 years the Himalayans have risen almost a mile into the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere!
http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/inde ... nt-everest
There is evidence of gradualism on the earth. I would argue that plate tectonics is essentially an electrical process. Why should electrical processes all neccessarily have to occur within very short timescales or with catastrophic characteristics? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater shall we?
However...I also see evidence of catastrophic examples of Electric discharge machining (EDM), such as in the case of the Grand Canyon. Donald E. Scott mentioned this in his book, and it has also been covered elsewhere on this site.
My argument is, that we should be prepared to accept a combination of gradualism and catastrophism that has marked the earth in history. Ultimately, all processes are electrical in nature.
webolife wrote:I agree with FRO9 and Dog.
Albeit with a creationist premise. Science may be incapable of answering the "why" question, but that doesn't mean I can't try... PP, the "time scale" question undergirds whichever view one will choose. So I recommend readers to the Carbon Dating thread, and other Radiometric Dating threads on this forum, for more info. about how old the earth is...
"In Eastern North America, the Appalachian Mountains continue to exist more than 200 million years after the plate collisions that formed them. Given rates of erosion, these mountains should have worn flat tens of millions of years ago; yet they still stand, indicating that some uplift must be continuing.
The cause of this puzzling late stage uplift was discovered in 1859 by British surveyor, G. B. Airy. While working in India, Airy discovered that plumb bobs, iron weights used to level sighting instruments were less attracted by the gravity from the nearby Himalayan Mountains than they should be if the Himalaya were directly underlain by the same dense rock presumed to form most of the Earth's interior.
This suggested there was less mass present beneath the Himalaya than previously thought. To explain this discrepancy Airy concluded that a low density root must lie beneath the range. Geophysical studies have since confirmed that the crust beneath the Himalaya extends to a depth of 75 kilometers, twice as thick as ordinary continental crust."
persianpaladin wrote:For example, the Grand Canyon really is an anomaly in terms of how it forms a deep rift in the Colorado Plateau. The characteristics of the canyon are unique in their structure and differ very much from the fold-type nature of many of the mountains we see such as those on plate margins - i.e. Andes and the Rockies. The equivalent on Mars, is Valles Marineris - which is ultimately just a scaled-up version of the Grand Canyon.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest