Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
 76 online now: AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 73 visitors) Newest Member: MidwestPaul Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 2/4

 Announcements: Security Update Released

EvC Forum Science Forums Dates and Dating

# So what about SILT and dating????

Author Topic:   So what about SILT and dating????
techristian
Member (Idle past 3342 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002

 Message 1 of 86 (157810) 11-10-2004 1:20 AM

We all know that as the rivers flow out to the oceans that they deposit silt on the ocean floor.

To calculate the age of a river
1) Measure 1 years accumulation of silt.
2) Measure total accumulation.
3) Divide TOTAL ACCUMULATION/1 year accumulation.

When the above calculation was completed , the amount of silt deposited IN ALL CASES ON THE EARTH, have been determined to be 4500 years accumulation of silt. Is this a coincidence?? If all of the rivers on the earth are only 4500 years old????????

Dan

 Replies to this message: Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 2:28 AM techristian has taken no action Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-10-2004 3:01 AM techristian has taken no action Message 6 by JonF, posted 11-10-2004 1:31 PM techristian has taken no action Message 7 by Percy, posted 11-10-2004 4:13 PM techristian has taken no action Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 11-10-2004 4:34 PM techristian has taken no action

Posts: 4754
Joined: 11-11-2003

 Message 2 of 86 (157822) 11-10-2004 2:25 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 3 of 86 (157824) 11-10-2004 2:28 AM Reply to: Message 1 by techristian11-10-2004 1:20 AM

Any research at all?
Did you do any research on this at all?

There is of course silt on the ocean floors. However it is not uniform.

Do you know about plate tectonics?

Do you have a source for the measurements and calculations that came up with this result.

We will discuss this for a bit if you want. However, you're going to find out that it is nonsense. It is one of a set of about 2 dozen such arguements for a young earth that have been around for years and have been shown to be junk over and over.

The source that gave you this is deliberately misleading you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by techristian, posted 11-10-2004 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 5262 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004

 Message 4 of 86 (157834) 11-10-2004 3:01 AM Reply to: Message 1 by techristian11-10-2004 1:20 AM

Here is a webpage that debunks various young earth arguments, including a few based on silt accumulation.

Perhaps you will find it helpful.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by techristian, posted 11-10-2004 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-10-2004 10:50 AM pink sasquatch has taken no action Message 24 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-01-2004 10:10 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Posts: 3959
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.8

 Message 5 of 86 (157955) 11-10-2004 10:50 AM Reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch11-10-2004 3:01 AM

Isn't that mighty close to being a bare link?

 Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

I think the creation side frequently gets chastised for responses of this nature. The rule applies to the evolution side also.

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-10-2004 10:52 AM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

 This message is a reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-10-2004 3:01 AM pink sasquatch has taken no action

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 6 of 86 (158024) 11-10-2004 1:31 PM Reply to: Message 1 by techristian11-10-2004 1:20 AM

quote:
When the above calculation was completed , the amount of silt deposited IN ALL CASES ON THE EARTH, have been determined to be 4500 years accumulation of silt.

BRRAAPPPPPP!! Sorry, wrong. Thanks for playing. We hope you enjoy your copy of the home game.

For just one example, in "The Age of the Earth" (Stanford University Press, 1991) Dalrymple lists (in Table 2.1 on pages 14-17) lists 28 estimates of the age of the Earth, based on sediment accumulation, performed between 1868 and 1917. The resulting estimates range from 3 million years to 15 billion years.

Ok, let's see the details of your source. Five bucks says you don't have one.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by techristian, posted 11-10-2004 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 7 of 86 (158115) 11-10-2004 4:13 PM Reply to: Message 1 by techristian11-10-2004 1:20 AM

 techristian writes:When the above calculation was completed , the amount of silt deposited IN ALL CASES ON THE EARTH, have been determined to be 4500 years accumulation of silt. Is this a coincidence?? If all of the rivers on the earth are only 4500 years old????????

The depth of the layers of any large river delta indicates ages much greater than 4500 years. As the layers accumulate and the weight increases, they tend to depress into the earth. The bottom layers under the greatest heat and pressure gradually turn to rock.

The Mississippi River delta is 7 miles thick in some places. At a deposition rate as high as even a centimeter a year, which would be very high, that's still 160,000 years. Deposition rates are actually much less than that, so the bottom layers of the delta are probably around a million years old.

Why isn't it older? The courses of rivers wander over time. The position of Mississippi's outlet into the Gulf of Mexico has not remained fixed.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by techristian, posted 11-10-2004 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action

Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 3642
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004

 Message 8 of 86 (158118) 11-10-2004 4:34 PM Reply to: Message 1 by techristian11-10-2004 1:20 AM

Hi techristian, strange that you completely slipped right through my fingers. I don't recall your username at all before this point.

Anyhow, may I suggest you read this thread before going any further? It gives a link to one of the website of one of the leading creationist organizations telling their fellow creationists some arguments that they shouldn't use.

Might I also add that your silt argument is so unfounded that not even the leading creationists have taken it seriously enough to put the argument on their website as one that creationists shouldn't use.

Peace.

Hate world.

Revenge soon!

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by techristian, posted 11-10-2004 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 5:45 PM coffee_addict has replied Message 61 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-15-2004 10:57 PM coffee_addict has taken no action

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 9 of 86 (158147) 11-10-2004 5:45 PM Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict11-10-2004 4:34 PM

Troll?
Do you think he'll be back? It's beginning to look a bit hit and run.

It's been awhile since we've had one of those who thinks this is all so easy. A simple house of cards to kick over.

 This message is a reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 11-10-2004 4:34 PM coffee_addict has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 11-10-2004 5:53 PM NosyNed has replied

Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 3642
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004

 Message 10 of 86 (158149) 11-10-2004 5:53 PM Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed11-10-2004 5:45 PM

Re: Troll?
It's only been a few hours.

Hate world.

Revenge soon!

 This message is a reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 5:45 PM NosyNed has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 6:41 PM coffee_addict has taken no action

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 11 of 86 (158159) 11-10-2004 6:41 PM Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict11-10-2004 5:53 PM

Re: Troll?
OMG, I am very confused. You're right.

 This message is a reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 11-10-2004 5:53 PM coffee_addict has taken no action

techristian
Member (Idle past 3342 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002

 Message 12 of 86 (158680) 11-12-2004 10:38 AM

My source was a christian radio announcer on WMUZ in Detroit. He announced this finding to the radio audience. This was only one of several proofs of a "young earth" that he made.

Here are 2 more that he made.

1)Dinosaur bones have been found that were not fossilized.

2)A tree was found buried in several layers of strata, implying that it was slowly buried over millions of years.

His arguments made sense to me.

I posted quite a bit on here a few years ago. I was a bit thrown by the "new topics forum" You can do a name search to find my other topics. I'm sure that most of them are CLOSED by now.

Dan

http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

 Replies to this message: Message 13 by jar, posted 11-12-2004 10:42 AM techristian has taken no action Message 14 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2004 10:47 AM techristian has taken no action Message 15 by Percy, posted 11-12-2004 11:15 AM techristian has taken no action

jar
Member
Posts: 33909
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7

 Message 13 of 86 (158682) 11-12-2004 10:42 AM Reply to: Message 12 by techristian11-12-2004 10:38 AM

Let's deal with the silt issue
before going on to the other things he was wrong about.

After reading the messages in this thread are you convinced that the silt issue has been adequately debunked?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 10:38 AM techristian has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 14 of 86 (158685) 11-12-2004 10:47 AM Reply to: Message 12 by techristian11-12-2004 10:38 AM

The question is not whether his arguments made sense but whether he got his facts right. From the looks of it he's simply repeating YEC claims - and in the case of the silt I doubt that he even managed to do that accurately.

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 10:38 AM techristian has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 15 of 86 (158698) 11-12-2004 11:15 AM Reply to: Message 12 by techristian11-12-2004 10:38 AM

Hi, techristian!

I agree with PaulK that your WMUZ announcer was just repeating old YEC claims, not any recent findings. You can find these claims at many Creationist websites - these claims have been around for a long time, and most of them have been addressed here more than once.

I also agree with Jar - the topic of this thread is silt and dating. JonF referred you to Dalrymple's book which gives a table of age estimates using sediment accumulation, all much, much older than 4500 years. If you're interested I can scan those pages in and post them for you.

Also, I provided you the example of the Mississippi River delta being 7 miles deep in places when the deposition rate is less than a centimeter per year, yielding an age far, far greater than 4500 years.

Both the Dalrymple and Mississippi information are directly based upon scientific findings, and it flatly contradicts your radio announcer. Could you respond to this, please?

Click on your name in the login line that appears on most pages, or anywhere your name happens to appear, such as next to messages you've authored. This will provide you a list of your most recent message in the last 30 threads you've participated in.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 10:38 AM techristian has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-12-2004 11:38 AM Percy has seen this message Message 18 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-01-2004 5:52 PM Percy has seen this message Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-01-2004 6:19 PM Percy has seen this message

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)