universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
I have no idea where you get those figures (and this is a big part of my field of study, by-the-way), but even assuming your numbers are superficially correct, your analysis is just wrong. Sorry, but it is.
Set aside that the age of the continents is not part of the theory of evolution, your basic idea that evidence supporting evolution (namely different layers with different fossils) means the Earth must be older than many young earth creationists wish to believe is correct. HOWEVER, the rest of what you say is just wrong. Its so wrong that I had a hard time even really grasping what you were trying to say. Its as though you were asking me to prove why 2+4= 1 instead of 6 ... and neglecting to say that you were referring to fractions (2/6 + 4/6 does equal 1).
No stream is static. The idea that streams have any set amount of deposit is just wrong. Mountains and the like are constantly eroding, digging down. If that were the only process happening, then we would have many "Grand Canyons", instead of just the one (and several "lesser" canyons). BUT, its not. Along with erosion is uplift. This accounts for significant change in the continents and landforms. The processes forming mountains and the like are mostly much longer, go back much further than life on Earth. Fossils are only found in what is considered geologically to be fairly "recent" times. Continents are a bit more complicated, because what is theorized is that the continents we see now were originally joined together into one big continent, which then split. So, when you refer to the the "age of the continents" you have to ask which "formation" you mean.. the original uplift or the later splitting.
Tectonic uplift (the crust of the Earth can, very loosely, be thought of as a series of conveyor belts, where some of it rises up, is created and the bottom is covered, melted down and "recycled" in a sense) causes many phenomena. It is why we have Earth quakes, it is why certain regions are heavy with volcanic action, etc. On top of those mega events, you have millions of tons of dust and debris that float in the wind and that can be significant enough to cover and create landforms in smaller regions (think Saharan sandstorms). Another force is growth, as in plant and animal growth. These change and add to the soils in various ways. However, the other part you keep avoiding is, again, the time frame. See, part of why scientists say the Earth is old is because we know how long each of these erosion processes take. It would take much, MUCH more than 4,500 years to erode all the sediments on Earth. Note that some streams, in relatively soft soils might erode at that rate, but then you also have streams going over bedrock that erode only very, very VERY slowly in human terms. The streams in "softer" soils also are those that tend to accumulate more soils (through floods and the like). Volcanoes and volcanic action adds yet another dimension.
I have tried to keep my answer short, but still answer your question. I and others here can go into more detail if you really wish, if you just don't understand part of what I have said.
