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.