No, I said that such erosion rates are not uniform.
I don’t know how I can state that more clearly. (Others are welcomed to try.) In any case, others have explained the evidence to you of the geologic phenomena and processes which you have misunderstood.
This is all first year geology. (When I took a year of undergrad geology around a half-century ago, these kind of erosion concepts were covered in the second semester and the last half of the textbook which was used for both of those semesters.)
Will you be correcting the CMI article with the false claim new arches are no longer forming at Arches National Park? Or will that fact be ignored like you and CMI ignore the rest of actual geology?
Ahh by “anticipated” you mean dismissed out of hand. The objection is dealt with by literally just declaring it can’t be.
Here’s the sentence that is supposed to refute this “anticipated” counterargument:
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.
Ahh I see, it should have… because it just should? Because… it just should, okay! It says so right there in that sentence.
It seems that comments posted at CMI pointing out that their articles are based on Wikipedia ‘information’ that was deleted because it couldn’t be substantiated don’t get approved.
