Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sediments
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 11 (38815)
05-02-2003 7:02 PM


Originally posted here
EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.
This is apparently something from Ken Ham. No reference has been given however.
The poster was asked:
Ken Ham, eh? Has no one told him that 62,000,000 years is more than 6,000?
and wondered why?
I believe I've seen Ham speak on TV. I'm pretty sure he's a YEC and that's where the comment is coming from. It is odd he'd suggest there is enough sediment to "account for about 62 million years" if that 10,000 times longer than he think earth has existed. Isn't it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:06 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 11 (38819)
05-02-2003 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
05-02-2003 7:02 PM


Catching up from the wrong forum
This is copied from the "wrong" forum to carry on the debate if amsmith986 would like to.
A small warning Mr. Smith. If you keep poppling up new topics without answering issues you've already raised you'll be overwhelmed trying to keep up. If you have an number of issues you think are important pick one or two and finish with those first.
I'm not trying to constrain you, of course. But you're in a tough position. Unless you are very expert in some area you'll find that almost everything (like this topic) has been brought up and/or answered already. You'll just get deluged with things to answer if you don't pace yourself a lttle.
Now then one response to the sediment issue was
This forum is a lot of fun, isn't it? From what I've seen here, you can pretty much find a knowledgeable person for just about any question you ask - as long as you show you're willing to actually read and consider the answers. However, I think you'll find it's even MORE fun to participate. For example, your statement:
Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.
would seem to require a bit more info provided on your part before it can really be addressed. For instance, could you reference where you got these figures? They seem to be somewhat off as far as what geologists and pedologists say is the case. "Evolutionists", for instance, mostly say things like, "Wow, those 3.5 gya microstructures sure resemble stromatolites. That must mean there were oceans that long ago, since those critters only live in oceans."
If you could give a reference for the 62 million year sediment figure, that would be helpful.
No response to this issue yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:02 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:07 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 11 (38820)
05-02-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
05-02-2003 7:06 PM


Re: Catching up from the wrong forum
And another resonse was (by crashfrog):
Is yet another person ignorant of plate tectonics/geology? Not to mention that evolution per se makes no claim about the age of the oceans (or the age of anything, for that matter.) Dating and age claims are generally geological.
For that matter, I'd like some idea of how you're arriving at that calculation. For instance I'm not sure which ocean you're referring to. The Atlantic is probably only 100 million years old or so, inferring from the models of continental drift I'm looking at (http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html). You're probably referring to the Pacific ocean.
As for the accumulated sediment, the ocean floor is in motion - being created at rifts and being subducted back into the Earth at trenches. Therefore I would propose that what's happeing is that any given area of the Pacific floor is only around long enough to accumulate some 67 million years' worth of sediment before it's subducted back into the mantle. That's just my guess.
Noah's flood could have upset things a little don't you think
I do think. It would have upset the fossil record's generally well-reserved sorting. It also would have upset an ark full of animals. That's just two things it would have upset and already it's enough evidence to discard the idea of a Noahic flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 11 (38822)
05-02-2003 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
05-02-2003 7:07 PM


Caught up
There, now we have the sediment issue here where i hope it belongs. Can someone clean up the other topic?
Dear Admin:
Is this ok? I'm just trying to both stay on topic elsewhere but at the same time not cut Mr. Smith off before he gets started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 7:07 PM NosyNed 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