[Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again

[Jay Bates]

Lanny R, I agree that 10,000 years is enough time for that much 
weathering particularly in that part of the world. I did not intend to 
make you or anyone else appear like an idiot. It is good to question 
conventional wisdom, particularly if your name is Wegener.

Lanny R wrote:
> If one looks at the amount of weathering in the rocky bluffs of the 
> lowlands and of the cliffs and big blocks in the talus of the 
> foothills and mountains, I would say that yes, that amount of 
> weathering would fit 10,000 years of exposure since the ice sheet 
> melted. Also, the rock is of a type not native to the Okotoks, but is 
> in a train of similar (but smaller) rocks that extend up to the 
> mountains, there probably is no doubt, geologically speaking, that it 
> is a glacial erratic.
>
> Lanny
>
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Jay Bates wrote:
>
>> I can't believe how many people on this list question that the two 
>> parts of the erratic do not fit together. How many geologic processes 
>> can you think of where they would not match? If they did not match, 
>> now that would be a big news. The two halves are very jointed and 
>> weathered. I would think a better question could be are they even 
>> erratics? I think they are erratics even though it is hard to imagine 
>> a glacier carrying such broken up and jointed rock a long ways from 
>> their origin. When did the glaciers melt in the area and could they 
>> have weathered that much in that time since the glacier melted? I 
>> would assume they have been there probably around 10,000 years, since 
>> the end of the last ice age. Is 10,000 years enough time to have that 
>> much weathering?
>>
>> R. Peter Richards wrote: