Mud from rivers into the oceans

[universalchiro]

So when talking about things like radiometric dating, the line is "well you can't assume things have always been constant, in the past the rate of this or that might have been much higher/lower", but when it suits we switch to "assuming the rate of this going back as long as it suits me is constant I can draw THIS conclusion"

Funny

Crispybits,
I'm consistent. Play this scenario out, I'm conjecturing that the reason there is not millions of years of sediment deposit is there was a massive acceleration of tectonic movement during the global flood of Noah, Genesis 7. And now we see the slow continental drift.

What most humans do in error, is take the rate of continental drift that we see today, divided by the distance traveled= equals the age of the continents from Pangea. There is a severe problem with this, and that is the absence of sediment along the ocean floor leaving a trail as the tectonic plates moved the continents. This absence of sediment is further compounded with the small amount of sediment deposits that the rivers have formed so far. Putting this information together means at some point in the past the continents moved quickly and now have slowed. Hence giving an old age with distance traveled based on today's rate of speed, but in reality, the movement was recent in geological age.

So you bring up a valid point, which reveals I'm in harmony with my evidenc that radioactive rates of decay have not always been constant.

[AndyDufresne]

There is a severe problem with this, and that is the absence of sediment along the ocean floor leaving a trail as the tectonic plates moved the continents.

Could you explain this part again?


--Andy

[universalchiro]

sure, as South America separated from Africa, there is no sediment deposit trail from the mouth of the Amazon river to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Likewise, there is no sediment deposit trail from the mouth of the Congo river to the mid-Atlantic ridge. My contention for this absence is an accelerated movement of the continents because of Genesis 7 flood. Very violent time on earth where waters burst out of the earth. Its plausible that this violent action caused South America to break away from Africa in a quick duration such as 6-12 months. And has ever since slowed to this present crawl.

Earthquakes have been known to move land quickly, so this is not impossible.
Does that help answer your question?

[AndyDufresne]

What if Earth eats sediment deposit? Surely there are holes in the Earth's crust, where sediment and people journeying to the center could fall into the Mantle.


--Andy

[Anarkistsdream]

What if Earth eats sediment deposit? Surely there are holes in the Earth's crust, where sediment and people journeying to the center could fall into the Mantle.


--Andy

What does it poop?

[AndyDufresne]

What if Earth eats sediment deposit? Surely there are holes in the Earth's crust, where sediment and people journeying to the center could fall into the Mantle.


--Andy

What does it poop?

I think lava. And it also fartbelches noxious gases.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

What if Earth eats sediment deposit? Surely there are holes in the Earth's crust, where sediment and people journeying to the center could fall into the Mantle.


--Andy

This possibility is confirmed by Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864). Those scientists have yet to explain how some people can travel to the center of the Earth without being burnt alive by the magma in the mantle.

[2dimes]

There was a guy last year sitting in his basement when a sink hole swallowed him. I don't think they ever found him.

[Metsfanmax]

So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.

Biblical historians seem to agree that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Why would there only be 4,500 years' worth of deposits then?

(I don't know enough about this topic to comment on the science, unfortunately.)

[_sabotage_]

UC,

Were the universe proven to rotate, wouldn't God's day be based on that period of rotation rather than our 24 hour day?

To be honest, I have never considered the universe to be created in 6 earth days. For all we know, we are still in the day of rest.

[khazalid]

So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.

Biblical historians seem to agree that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Why would there only be 4,500 years' worth of deposits then?

(I don't know enough about this topic to comment on the science, unfortunately.)

you don't need to.

why people find the need to try and back up their faith with scientific evidence i will just never understand. the idea that they are ever going to be reconcilable in anything but very isolated and coincidental degrees is laughable.

laudate dominum

[_sabotage_]

Science is the act of understanding how great God is in his creation, not a means of backing up faith.

[khazalid]

it certainly was two centuries ago, no denying

[_sabotage_]

Seems to me that a few centuries ago, science was constrained by the Church who crave a limited, manageable God. But God is not limited, or manageable. Current science shows the fineness of his design and dispels the possibility of our existence was not manifested through God. Whether you already have faith may dictate your view on the Big Bang as a an act of God or otherwise.

[khazalid]

woah dere.

'current science ... dispels the possibility ... our existence was not manifested through god.'

since when? :/ i suppose that must be why so many scientist are, uhh, religious men. *cough

[_sabotage_]

They do spend all their time studying God. The deeper they delve, the more understanding of God they attain and the better they recognize him.


Unless you are referring to the scientists who completely break from the scientific method for the sole purpose of trying to disprove God.

[universalchiro]

UC,

Were the universe proven to rotate, wouldn't God's day be based on that period of rotation rather than our 24 hour day?

To be honest, I have never considered the universe to be created in 6 earth days. For all we know, we are still in the day of rest.

The length of a day has always been one rotation of the earth, not 24hours. Evidence: after each day of creation, Bible says "there was evening and there was morning, a X number day. Time wasn't created until the 4th day , with the creation of sun/moon/stars, "it will be for signs, seasons, for days and years."


Exodus 20 & 31: tell of God telling Moses twice verbally and twice written in stone that He made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th day.

God's day? God as the creator of time, is not bound by time. And so a day is like a 1,000 yeas as a 1,000 years is like a day.

[_sabotage_]

Back to the thread...

If the mud from the rivers is 4500 years old, this could point to the flood changing river patterns, but even if it doesn't, I'm assuming that the same methods of dating the mud is that which is used to date billion year old rocks and the standard has you. If the same standard proves that many things are older, where do you get that the world is 4500 years old?

[universalchiro]

So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.

Biblical historians seem to agree that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Why would there only be 4,500 years' worth of deposits then?

(I don't know enough about this topic to comment on the science, unfortunately.)

The hypothesis is that at the time of creation there was Pangea. This is represented by God on the 3rd day of creation gathering the waters into one place. Which means the dry land would be in the other one place. ie Pangea. Genesis 1. (3rd day), some 6,000 years ago.

Water burst out of the earth (Genesis 7:11) for 40 days and it rained for 40 days, global flood. This catastrophic event broke apart Pangea to individual continents, roughly 4,500 years ago. This is why there is only enough sediment deposits at the deltas of rivers to support young rivers. Otherwise, the gulf of Mexico would potentially filled in by now after 120 million years of deposits. And with slow moving continents, the ocean floor would have a trail leading back to where the rivers started with a fanned out line leading from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the river delta.

Thoughts?

[_sabotage_]

The continental crust is supposed to be heavier than the oceanic crust due to composition: sediments are less dense than rock. This forces the sediments under the continental crust and recycles them in the outer core.

As you also state, slow moving continents. This can be observed in many places. There isn't enough time for the world to be as it is from a single continent in your scenario. Even if the waters broke up the continent, they would not have increased the rate of continental shift.

Again, if you are using an excepted standard of measurement, it would not explain fossils.

[chang50]

woah dere.

'current science ... dispels the possibility ... our existence was not manifested through god.'

since when? :/ i suppose that must be why so many scientist are, uhh, religious men. *cough

Exactly,perhaps Sabotage can cite the scientific experiments,and the names of the subsequent Nobel prize winners,that 'dispel the possibility..our existence was not manifested through god'?Otherwise the claim is meaningless gobbledegook..
Personally I totally missed them despite watching tv news several times a day and reading newspapers,magazines etc,on and offline.

[_sabotage_]

Perhaps you can cite the scientific experiment which has created life out of nothingness. Perhaps you can cite any scientific data which would make life possible. Any? Just one.

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps you can cite the scientific experiment which has created life out of nothingness. Perhaps you can cite any scientific data which would make life possible. Any? Just one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

I think an experiment in a glass bottle that produces all of the naturally occurring amino acids certainly proves it's possible (in the sense that it's not impossible) to create life from originally inorganic materials.

[_sabotage_]

That experiment was done 60 years ago. The controls were wrong. But had our planet actually been like that, amino acids are a stretch from life. You can put all the blood, organs and cells that make a human into whichever environment you want, it still won't come alive.

But do tell, how has the fervent work on those amino acids progressed in the last 60 years? Have they lead to the suggestion that God created life?

[universalchiro]

As you also state, slow moving continents. This can be observed in many places. There isn't enough time for the world to be as it is from a single continent in your scenario. Even if the waters broke up the continent, they would not have increased the rate of continental shift. Again, if you are using an excepted standard of measurement, it would not explain fossils.

Continental shift can happen very quickly with tremendous earthquakes. And the flood of Genesis 7 was a catastrophic event, The evidence that I have laid out in this thread is strong indication that the continents moved very quickly.
Your understanding of fossil formation needs some polishing. For fossils to form, they need to be covered quickly with soil, moisture and pressure. The global flood, of water bursting out of the deep caverns under the crust and shifting Pangea to the 7 continents would have certainly raised the turbidity high enough for organism to be covered for fossilization to occur before cellular decomposition occurs.
Hope that helps.