Why are they incongruous?
Different parts of the material can have different densities, and areas of higher and lower concentration of materials that have different degrees of resistance to erosion(they’re usually not perfectly homogenous at either micro or macroscopic scales, so they’ll not erode at uniform rates throughout). Dude come on, you have to be able to figure this out. Who do you think is impressed by you playing dumb?
Let me help you out. I consider all your arguments in detail. It just doesn’t require all that long to figure this out. And I honestly don’t believe you’re not capable of this yourself.
2 Likes
Of course the process of erosion applies, no magic is involved. Even what passes for flood geology says erosion can form arches. How do you think arches formed?
It took all of 15 seconds to find this description of arch formation from the Utah Geological Survey.
GLAD YOU ASKED: WHY ARE THERE SO MANY NATURAL ARCHES IN UTAH?
Climate and Substrate Material
Natural arches form in a variety of rock types such as limestone, shale, granite, or even basalt. However, in Utah, sandstone is the most common geological substrate for their formation. Several of Utah’s sandstone bedrock units meet the favorable conditions of being strong enough to support the weight of large natural arches, yet soft enough to be easily eroded by the natural processes of wind, water, and gravity. The region’s semiarid climate also plays an important role in forming and maintaining the needed exposures of these sandstone units. Because of sandstone’s unique permeability and porosity (the ability of water to flow through its pore spaces), a climate that is too wet tends to destroy sandstone’s ability to form cliffs by allowing groundwater to leach out too much of the mineral cement that holds the sand grains together. On the other hand, a climate that is too dry will not sustain the perennial streams responsible for the effective development of cliffs and canyons where arches most often form.
Regional, Parallel Joint Systems
Arch formation in Utah is also facilitated by an abundance of regional, parallel joint systems or sequences of bedrock fractures. These joint systems tend to be located on the flanks of broad, gently sloping uplifts or folds. Many of the arches found in iconic places such as Arches, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Zion National Parks, for instance, formed along deeply eroded fracture systems bordering folds created during compressional tectonic events. In some areas, such as Arches National Park, subsurface salt migration played a role in creating these elongated domed structures. In other areas, such as Zion National Park, more recent extensional tectonics played a role in enlarging preexisting joint systems. Over time, these joints and fractures become exposed at the surface and erode into a network of canyons and rock fins ideal for the formation of arches. Joint systems can also form independent of regional fold or fault zones. In many parts of Utah, arches form along joints that develop parallel to the walls of deep canyons. As streams carve canyons into the bedrock, lateral pressure is removed, allowing the bedrock to fracture as it relaxes and expands into the newly created space. Expansion of ice in these fractures greatly accelerates this process. In many of Utah’s sandstone alcoves, “sheeting” of the rock is evidence of this slow relaxing and expansion of rock once under great pressure.
Read more at the link. That’s the citation PDPrice says no one here ever supplies.
2 Likes
I will quote Oard:
Although the specialized conditions that might have formed arches and natural bridges were present in the late-Flood period, the process has not been observed and we must rely on inference. Rapid downcutting by floodwater during late Flood erosion, either over a high area or during the formation of an incised valley, could have undercut less resistant rock, breaking through underneath a more resistant layer. Or, possibly mechanical erosion from the floodwater was concentrated lower down on the rock surface, eventually cutting a hole.
The bridges in Natural Bridges National Monument could have formed at the very end of the Flood when the last vestiges of the Flood were extremely channelized. The formation of Natural Bridge and Natural Tunnel, Virginia, by the rapid erosion of caves in limestone18,19,20,21 followed by Flood erosion of the roof seems like a viable hypothesis.
It could be that some of the uniformitarian suggestions, such as a different lithology, weaker cementing of the sand, and local fracture concentration, in combination with catastrophic flow during Flood runoff, caused the arches of Arches National Park and elsewhere.
The process of erosion is ‘rapidly’ destroying these arches before our very eyes. That’s why whatever process created them must have been even more rapid than the erosion we are witnessing today. Gradualism doesn’t work to explain them.
This claim is addressed in the article itself.
Some geologists suggest that the erosion of a less resistant rock underneath a more resistant rock causes the arches, but such a mechanism can account for few arches, at best.9 Other hypothesized mechanisms are no more likely. Cruikshank and Aydin10 summarized:
‘There is no need to invoke reasons such as weak cement, unloading, or exfoliation to explain the presence of arches, especially when these processes act on similar rocks in nearby regions without producing the same abundance of arches.’
The problem with that much time is that the bridge or arch should have weathered and collapsed long before the material around it was able to erode and leave behind an arch or natural bridge.
Cruikshank and Aydin9 hypothesized that the majority of arches are caused by ‘local enhancement of erosion by fracture concentration’, which they have identified in many arches. Why was such an ‘obvious mechanism’ somehow missed by previous investigators? However, no one has seen an arch form by this mechanism.
Thus, long free-standing arches do not seem to be forming today in Arches National Park; in other words stage three and early four are not observed. And, like Wall Arch, we do observe late stage 4, their collapse.
Yet, you fail to acknowledge that your counterargument is already anticipated in the article you’re critiquing.
No you didn’t.
This is really atrocious reading. What I said is that the terms “operational” vs “historical” can be traced to Geisler. The basic binary distinction of concepts can be traced much further back in secular literature. You should have done better.
More YEC “science”. The Flood miraculously laid down all the wet sediment which was miraculously bored through by the receding Flood waters and which then was miraculously lithified into hard sandstone to keep the arches from collapsing. Science is easy when you get to invoke miracles at every turn. 
1 Like
That wasn’t my question, but If you don’t want to answer that’s OK. I realise you might consider this a personal question.
Here’s some of my favorite “magic”:
Yep. It’s magic.
3 Likes
Nobody sneeze!
Yes, he did in the very first post. Look again. Evidence doesn’t magically vanish just because you don’t like it.
Please show us an example today of a flood depositing sandstone then carving an arch with the receding waters.
By any reasonable standard, Roy did.
This can even be demonstrated experimentally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDjyd1aByQ (1m16s video, it’s quick!)
Roy confused a natural bridge with a natural arch. He also gave us a red herring since his example was literally sitting in the ocean. So that formation was rapid!
Yeah, I’m seeing them reproduce a rapid submersion in water. And this is supposed to prove that submerging sediments in water is not the cause of these features?
The bottom picture with multiple stages of arch formation isn’t in the ocean. It’s in the desert in Utah.
3 Likes
PDPrice, your YEC source says natural arches were formed by receding Flood waters, correct?
Here is the Catherine Creek Arch in Washington state.
You can see from the shadow it’s a complete arch with a through passage. The thing is this arch is formed from basalt, which is solidified lava.
Please tell us how the Flood waters managed to rapidly carve this arch in Flood deposited molten lava without it collapsing.
Back in my “creation science” days of the 1960’s, it was not so rare as you might think for a Young Earth Creationist to answer: “Obviously, I reject the Uniformitarianism of godless scientists. So I realize that the laws of physics could have been different back then, including during the flood.”
Whether it is miracles or simply a change in the laws of physics, these are the debate equivalents of Goldschitt’s Universal Equation Solver: multiply both sides of the equation by zero.
2 Likes
If they can be traced, please present a reference. What are the pre-Geisler terms?