Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geological question. (Sea floor sediment accumulation)
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 38 (399373)
05-05-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CanadianBiologyGeek
05-05-2007 3:36 AM


Good catch on the compression – that's one part. Also, note that "The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction" is not substantiated, 'cause it's not true. And, of course, the uniformitarian assumption that they decry so strongly when it suits them.
A good place to start on such items is the Index of Creationist Claims. From Claim CD220.1:
quote:
  1. Yes, more sediment is deposited in the oceans than is removed by subduction. However, subduction is not the only fate of sediment deposited into the oceans. Some sediment deposited on the continental margin can become part of the continent itself if the sea level falls or the land is uplifted. Some calcium and organic sediments become biomass or ultimately dissolve. Some sediment becomes compacted as it deepens, so its volume is not indicative of the original sediment volume. Some sediment is "scraped" off of subducting plates and becomes coastal rocks.
  2. The uniformitarian assumption in the claim is not valid. Tectonics involves ocean basins forming and spreading, but it also involves them closing up again (the Wilson cycle). When the basins close, the sediment in the oceans is piled up on the edges of continents or returned to the mantle. Much of British Columbia was produced when the Pacific Ocean closed a few hundred million years ago and land in the ocean accreted to the continent.

When you next discuss this, you might ask how your YEC friend explains the variation of thickness of sediment on the ocean floor; e.g. zero at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, about 150 million years worth at the margins of the Atlantic, and pretty smooth variation in between. Exactly as predicted by slow plate spreading at the ridge over millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CanadianBiologyGeek, posted 05-05-2007 3:36 AM CanadianBiologyGeek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 05-05-2007 10:12 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 38 (399393)
05-05-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
05-05-2007 10:12 AM


Balance? Right!
quote:
The reference to subduction is a response to a claim by an evolutionist that subduction did remove it. So at this point Humphreys is simply dealing with the only mechanism the evolutionist had given him at the time.
Actually, it's an unsolicited claim by Humphreys in response to nothing in particular. So it's his responisbility to be familiar with the theory he's critcising. He isn't, or he's suppressing relevant information.
Strike one.
quote:
Fine - but what is the average rate per year at which these processes occurs? Without an estimate of the average rate per year at which they occur, there is no way to estimate their net effect.
Cuts both ways. In the absence of rate information (and I don't know if there is no rate information; I wouldn't accept the anonymous author's word), nobody can estimate the effect of the processes. Especially Humphreys can't. So his claim that there's too much sediemnt is unfounded. Given the vast amount of other evidence for an old Earth and slow tectonic processes, the best Humphreys can come up with is "not proven for this particular process". Yet he claims proof.
Strike two.
quote:
According to Uniformitarian theory, over the last 12 million years this effect would account for at most 1% of the total. This stretches it only to 12.12 million years. In other words this effect is insignificant to the problem.
Reference:Continental Drift
The simple fact is that for the oceans to be 3 billion years old the average accumulation of mud would have to be only 96 million tons per year. This means that the methods of removal suggested in point number 1 would have to remove on average 23.9 billion tons of mud per year.
The reference to whic they link is irrelevant.
No calculations are presented or refered to in support of the numerical claims. That is, they appear to be made up out of thin air.
Oh, and mainstream science doesn't claim that the oceans are anywhere near three billion years old; Isaak explicitly pointed that out, the reference linked to from your reference shows it clearly. There have been oceans for many billions of years, but that's something else entirely.
Strike three.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 05-05-2007 10:12 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024