Added:
Also, since your own process for forming natural arches invokes water action , your objection that the arches I showed were bridges not arches because they were formed by water is ridiculous:
Paraphrasing:
@PDPrice: Natural arches were formed by water erosion.
Me: Here are some natural arches being formed today.
@PDPrice: Those aren’t natural arches because they’re being formed by water erosion.
Everyone except @PDPrice: 
Here’s how the Natural Arch and Bridge Society define the term:
Definition: A natural bridge is a type of natural arch. In general, a natural bridge is distinguished from other types of natural arches by having one or more of the following attributes:
- a current of water, such as a stream, clearly was a major agent in the formation of the opening (hole) [genetic]
- a current of water, such as a stream, flows through the opening (hole) [contextual]
- it is being, or has been, used by man as a bridge supporting a portion of a road [anthropomorphic]
- it has the general appearance of a man-made bridge, e.g., a flat, level top over an arched opening [anthropomorphic].
So those natural bridges in Australia are, by their definition, also natural arches. Unless you can produce a source that defines it differently - and self-serving claptrap from you or your creationist buddies doesn’t qualify - you haven’t got a pile to stand on.
That’s really atrocious quote-mining. I addressed the supposed earlier reference to secular literature, and you simply ignored it. Here it is again:
If you’re going to claim that “The basic binary distinction of concepts can be traced much further back in secular literature.” then you need to find something in secular literature that describes that distinction. So far you haven’t.
No, I don’t need to show that. It would be nice to know, but it’s not a requirement for me to know that in order to rationally believe the Bible’s history is true.
What percentage of all there is to know about the geophysical forces active in the earth (present and past) do you imagine we currently know? Conservatively?
Thankfully, no.
Let me break this down further for you. Bridges have a water source underneath them. Like ocean water, rivers, etc. Arches do not. The Flood was a one-time event. But thanks anyway for posting, because you’ve just shown how features like these do require the action of water to produce them, and they are produced relatively quickly by that action.
That’s simply not the case. But let the other readers who may be open-minded enough to consider this read the quotes for themselves. You’re totally misrepresenting it.
I’m fairly confident that you have never looked at the actual article, given that you garbled the citation. Is that true? Kroeber does refer to biology at a couple of points, but the quoted part is explicitly about historical reconstruction in anthropology, not historical science in general.
We observe that the heat budget for the earth is only sufficient to move tectonic plates a few millimeter or centimeters a year. To compress that tectonic movement into kilometers per hour would require several orders of magnitude more energy, melting rather than moving the continents, and turning Noah’s Flood into Noah’s steam bath.
I read his article once and will be happy to CLICK and read again. Some time after that I will probably CLICK and re-read a third time! I found the article very informative and added it to a file. I read these articles because they are instructive, not to help anyone “get paid per click”.
Well then, here is the pre-print of the same study that generated that video I linked earlier. (This will look like I set you up, but I wasn’t aware of the source until I went looking just now.):
and the supplementary materials showing images of sandstone arches that have formed naturally in a quarry:
Does this meet your criteria?
Poppycock. Some bridges have water under them. Others go over railways, roads, dry gorges, cycle paths, pedestrian precincts, cargo holds, archaeological sites, rough terrain, gullies, fault lines or gardens. Likewise, some natural bridges have water under them - and some, like the one in National Bridge Park, Virginia, do not.
As noted above, and which you have ignored, natural bridges are a type of natural arch - therefore some natural arches do have water beneath them.
Redefining the words you use won’t help you.
Just because those specific features were formed by water erosion doesn’t mean all such features were, or that water is required.
I keep hearing this. What Flood model are you invoking here?
I used fiat creation in the wrong sense and PDPrice corrected me. I was trying to make a distinction between miraculous creation models that do not employ higher-level mathematics to explain universe origins and models that do use it (e.g., Humphrey’s cosmologies). I was conflating “fiat” with “miraculous” and asking if CMI was currently considering and/or leaning in that direction regarding cosmology. However, as Price said, “fiat” would include all YEC cosmology models, even though with exotic math.
Can you isolate what in particular you’re talking about? These structures don’t appear to have formed in the absence of water:
“Supplementary Figure 3 Landforms in SLS documented in the Strelec quarry. All forms are developed at SLS exposures excavated several weeks to a maximum of 6 years ago and are thus with no doubt less than 6 years old. Slaking is probably the main process entraining the grains of SLS into flowing or standing water (Sec. 4a). a) Fast flowing stream rich with sand in suspension with arch resisting to flow (bottom left part of photo); b)The arch from previous figure one day later; c) Arch excavated by flood- flow; d) Arch resisting to water from waterfall for at least several weeks; e) Cavities expanding from vertical fractures; f) Small-scale alcoves created by seeping groundwater; g) Similar alcoves like in the previous figure but created by immersion in artificial lake; h) Cave pillar in subsurface stream; h), i), j), k) Inclined pillars/alcoves/arches with visible lines of stress. Black scale bar in all figures represents 10 cm.”
Look at the photos from the Strelec quarry, (supplementary figure one).
And from near the beginning of the main article:
We know enough to know that friction has to be part of the equation. It doesn’t matter where the energy comes from, when you put enough of it into a continent to produce a mountain range in a few months, it’s going to get really really hot.
I’m happy to let other readers read the whole article for themselves. I suspect* that’ll put them one up on you.
*Because as @John_Harshman has noted, you not only miscited it in exactly the same way AiG did, you also got the page number wrong.
Ok, you get some points here on a technicality (this didn’t involve water). However, blasting is a rapid catastrophic process. What I asked for was a repeatable experiment showing the production of these features under gradualistic conditions like what they theorize actually created the arches in question.
This is certainly repeatable and does not involve submersion is water. Is it reasonable that other erosion forces like wind, freeze/thaw, exfoliation and stress (as described in the article), though milder, could have similar effects over time?
Even if water is involved, the video shows that catastrophe is not necessary. I think the submersion experiments could be replicated using a wind tunnel. It would take longer but the physical dynamics are very similar.
There are also bridges that were formed by water (a meandering river). Subsequent erosion left them high and dry.
^^^ Nice place, if you ever get the chance to visit.
From Bruthans et al:
In the principal part of our study, we investigated development of sandstone landforms by means of physical modelling. We vertically loaded SLS blocks and partially immersed them in water. The portion of the block above the water level remained stable due to additional cohesion sources (such as capillary cohesion). The portion below the water level disintegrated into individual grains. This disintegration progressed until a stable landform evolved. An implication of the negative feedback between stress and erosion is that material that is not part of the load bearing structure, specifically the volumes where the stress does not exceed critical value, is rapidly removed by erosion while the load-bearing portion is protected during each period of landform evolution.
Just because they used water in these experiments, that doesn’t mean water is required. Any kind of erosion will do, because the key point is basically that the non-arch parts of the sandstone are weaker than then arch part, so even starting with a cubic block and applying erosion everywhere equally (e.g. by wind) would erode away everything except the arch first.
The whole point is that the features are being eroded by wind, rain, lightning, etc. rather rapidly now. It’s difficult to imagine what gradual process would have eroded all the massive amounts of surrounding rock while leaving the arch itself standing and intact … other than a rapid catastrohpic process such as the Flood, or in your example, blasting.