Large round boulders on hilltops

Have you ever threw a stone into water and try to make it float?

That was not my question, though. He believed that a flood brought those rocks up that high. It's one thing for water to be able to move rocks around. It's another for it to levitate the rocks to very high altitude.

You didn't answer my question. Have you tried to make a rock float in water?What I'm trying to get at is that water DO move things as dense as rocks around, but the potential energy of these rocks only decreases rather than increases.Added by edit.I've always thought christians were sexless Added by edit again.Look at my avatar. Over the summer, I climbed to the top of the continental divide at 12,500 feet. 7 days up and 7 days down. That picture was taken at the base of the climb... when I was still good looking... more or less. I looked like a reck by the time I got to the top.Anyway, as you can see, I encountered lots of boulders on my journey upward. It took a lot of energy on my part to add such an increase in my potential energy by several thousand feet. It also took some intelligence and GPS guidance to climb up that high. Otherwise, my natural tendency would be to go downward and simply allow my potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy.Same thing with the supposed flood. A flood of that magnitude would flatten everything out rather than piling a bunch of boulders together and increase their potential energy.Just look at the recent flood in New Orleans. Instead of seeing houses and debris piling up into a really big hill, everything is distributed out relatively evenly because that is the most efficient way for nature to work.Do you agree with what I said so far?This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-17-2005 05:19 PM

We're not talking about some flat hills on a prairie here. There are places on the Rockies where I was at that these really big boulders were hundreds of feet high. I really do think it's a stretch to think that water actually pushed these really big boulders that far uphill (several thousand feet up).Again, we're not talking about just some regular boulders. We're talking about boulders as heavy as buildings in big cities.

I'm not treating everyone like children. I am simply pointing out the fact that it's a bit of a stretch to think water placed big boulders into formations like what she described. I am also simply pointing out the fact that if we are going to use evidence for something like the great flood we have to use more evidence than just what we can see in our local area.She said that the boulders in her area looked like they were put there by a flood. I pointed out that big boulders elsewhere, like the ones on the Rockies, would not agree with her flood premise.This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-17-2005 10:13 PM

Both, actually. I fully realized that boulders do get moved around quite a bit by forces of nature. What I'm having trouble believing is a flood would actually move truck and building size boulders into nice and neat formations, sometimes one on top of another.

quote:

---

And actually, brennakimi makes a valid point. Depending on the size of the boulders, water can move them around quite easily (glaciers can move even bigger boulders further). Spring flash floods and other larger floods, say One Hundred Year Floods, are common. Cement these flood deposits, uplift them, and they could certainly be found weathering on tops of mountains. No need to actually 'push' the boulders uphill. These deposits leave tell-tale signs, however.

---

We're not talking about glaciers or hundred years floods. We're talkign about a flood that supposedly took place 40 days and 40 nights.

quote:

---

Additionally, if you're seeing boulders as heavy as buildings in the city, you are most likely looking at in situ weathering of bedrock.

---

No argument here.

quote:

---

That's why it's important for Christian to tell us how these boulders occur, how big they are, etc. They could be in situ weathering of bedrock or boulders derived from a depositional process.

---

Good luck.

Haha, you're too late. I just changed it. If you click on it, it will blow up for you to see better.

And you just proved my point exactly. As you can see, the boats aren't all piled one on top of another in a single column. Rather, they are pretty much spread out in the little area that they are in.When things go through disasterous ordeals, they tend to go toward a state of "spread out" even if they are clumped together somewhere. You're not going to find 10 boats piled on each other in a single column like you do in some rock formations.Added by edit.And even then, these boats were designed to float, not sink as soon as they touch water. Therefore, if we're talking about the piling on top of each other, these boats actually had more chances to pile into the columns that we see in nature than rocks, and they don't. This shows you how very unlikely a disasterous flood in 40 days and 40 nights would create some of the boulder formations that we see, especially in the Rockies.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-21-2005 04:01 AM