Chimney Rock..if the earth is "old" why is it still here?

[CrowCross]

According to geologist Chimney Rock is about 28 million years old. Of course there is one problem. It is eroding.


According to the Nebraska State Historical Society Chimnet rock is currently about 120 feet high and has lost about 30 feet in the last 150 years.
At that erosion rate one would think it would have been long gone millions of years ago. Heck, tens of thousands of years ago.
Then again maybe it’s not as old as some people claim.

 

[Yttrium]

It's not all made of the material. Different parts of it erode at different rates. It's mainly made up of sandstone, clay and volcanic ash. The sandstone is going to be more durable than the clay and ash. A part of it could have a harder layer slowly erode, exposing a softer layer that erodes faster, followed by a harder layer, etc.

 

[CrowCross]

It's not all made of the material. Different parts of it erode at different rates. It's mainly made up of sandstone, clay and volcanic ash. The sandstone is going to be more durable than the clay and ash. A part of it could have a harder layer slowly erode, exposing a softer layer that erodes faster, followed by a harder layer, etc.

When one looks at the picture...there is a VAST surrounding area that contained the same layers that went on for miles upon miles.

The best answer is that the receeding flood waters washed it away.

 

[Yttrium]

When one looks at the picture...there is a VAST surrounding area that contained the same layers that went on for miles upon miles.

The best answer is that the receeding flood waters washed it away.

If you say so. I'm no expert with the area. I'm just pointing out that erosion isn't constant.

 

[CrowCross]

If you say so. I'm no expert with the area. I'm just pointing out that erosion isn't constant.

Current erosion may not be constant...
but, if you draw a line horizontally from the layers seen in chimney mt...there was a lot of "rock" removed from that area.
I don't think rain and wind can explain it...the flood receding so far is the best answer.

 

[Yttrium]

Current erosion may not be constant...
but, if you draw a line horizontally from the layers seen in chimney mt...there was a lot of "rock" removed from that area.

I don't see how one could draw that conclusion. There could have been more rock, or there could have been layers of other materials covering the rock. Of course, there could be a lot of clues about that in the surrounding terrain, whether the covering material was carried away by simple erosion or a flood.

I don't think rain and wind can explain it...the flood receding so far is the best answer.

I'm not sure the remaining structure could have withstood the intense water pressure of a flood. Meanwhile, if there was much more to the structure originally (which is likely considering the volcanic origin), natural erosion seems to me to be a plausible explanation. I wouldn't rule out either idea without more research.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't see how one could draw that conclusion. There could have been more rock, or there could have been layers of other materials covering the rock. Of course, there could be a lot of clues about that in the surrounding terrain, whether the covering material was carried away by simple erosion or a flood.

The Chimney rock strata extended for miles in all directions.....All that is left now is what is shown in the picture in the OP.

I'm not sure the remaining structure could have withstood the intense water pressure of a flood. Meanwhile, if there was much more to the structure originally (which is likely considering the volcanic origin), natural erosion seems to me to be a plausible explanation. I wouldn't rule out either idea without more research.

I drove through Texas one day....long drive.
You can see the buttes with their flat water sheered flat tops...keep on driving and you see several others....What does that tell you? All the "dirt" that was between the buttes have been removed.....same thing happened at chimney rock and the surrounding area.
I was also in Sedona. When you look at the mountains you see a white line..."strata layer" running through the rock. If you turn aound and look across you see the same white line strata....which tells you at one time there was the same strata above your head....but the flood washed it away. There are examples everywhere.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

When one looks at the picture...there is a VAST surrounding area that contained the same layers that went on for miles upon miles.

The best answer is that the receding flood waters washed it away.

Alternately, it may be that glaciers carved out the land around the stone during the last Ice Age.

This phenomenon is well-documented across the northern United States. Slow-moving ice displaced soil and debris, leaving larger chunks of rock exposed.

It may be that the stone was buried for a long time, and then became exposed and has suffered erosion only for a few thousand years.

-Jarrod

 

[CrowCross]

Alternately, it may be that glaciers carved out the land around the stone during the last Ice Age.

How would that work?

Then again a quick look at where chimney rock is on an ice age map.....it doesn't appear that area had glaciers.

This phenomenon is well-documented across the northern United States. Slow-moving ice displaced soil and debris, leaving larger chunks of rock exposed.

It may be that the stone was buried for a long time, and then became exposed and has suffered erosion only for a few thousand years.

-Jarrod

It's more likely the flood waters eroded the area around the rock....it's kinda hard to deny Noahs flood.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It's more likely the flood waters eroded the area around the rock....it's kinda hard to deny Noahs flood.

Deny? More like debate the extent of it. It seems unlikely that Noah's flood had that sort of effect in inland America.

 

[CrowCross]

Deny? More like debate the extent of it. It seems unlikely that Noah's flood had that sort of effect in inland America.

I see you dropped your glacier argument.

Why would it seem unlikely that the flood would have that effect on inland America?

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I see you dropped your glacier argument.

Just chiming in with a thought. I recently watched a video about glaciation in N.America at the end of the last Ice Age, so it occurred to me as an alternative.

Why would it seem unlikely that the flood would have that effect on inland America?

Because Noah's flood was in Asia/Europe, not America.

 

[CrowCross]

Just chiming in with a thought. I recently watched a video about glaciation in N.America at the end of the last Ice Age, so it occurred to me as an alternative.

Well, it didn't hold up.

Because Noah's flood was in Asia/Europe, not America.

Back in that time the continents were one huge continent.

Extremely large layers of sandstone deposited by the flood confirm that.

This site is a good site to begin with:

Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Back in that time the continents were one huge continent.

Extremely large layers of sandstone deposited by the flood confirm that.

This site is a good site to begin with:

Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time.

Young earth? Maybe Day Age? Yeah I'm not gonna waste much time on that website.

I don't find the YEC view credible.

 

[CrowCross]

Young earth? Maybe Day Age? Yeah I'm not gonna waste much time on that website.

Of course not. You've been indoctrinated into the false belief of an old earth.
You also can't explain away what the YEC site presents...so you simply dismiss it rather that actually trying to learn the truth.

I don't find the YEC view credible.

i don't find the old earth view as credible. One example would be soft biomaterial found in dinosaurs that shouldn't be there if they were as old as you have been taught to believe.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Of course not. You've been indoctrinated into the false belief of an old earth.

Indoctrinated? By... who? And how is that you have come to know private details of my life, stranger?

You also can't explain away what the YEC site presents...so you simply dismiss it rather that actually trying to learn the truth.

Correct - I can't. Moreover, I'm not interested in trying to do so. Trying to interpret Scripture with science is a fool's errand. So if that's your invitation... no thanks.

I prefer to interpret Scripture with history and grammar. As I read the Bible, it doesn't support a young earth unless you badly misunderstand what is written there, and why it is written there.

i don't find the old earth view as credible. One example would be soft biomaterial found in dinosaurs that shouldn't be there if they were as old as you have been taught to believe.

Funny I don't remember a verse about 'soft biomaterial in dinosaurs.'

-Jarrod