Mud from rivers into the oceans

[AndyDufresne]

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

BBS, what proof do you have that subduction zones exist? I mean, I understand that abduction zones exist, but your wishy washy dirt moving under other dirt? This isn't a high fantasy realm we live in with elves and dwarves and oompa loompas.


--Andy

--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

[universalchiro]

universalchiro,... the basic fact outstanding that the oceans are not static bodies of water. .... These currents will most certainly have picked up the sediments in question and will have moved them on. ....

There is no disputing oceans have currents. But you leave out a very important part that the current at the surface of the ocean is 100 X greater than the current at the bottom of the ocean. Don't you think that is important?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/Eug ... ikov.shtml
Don't you think it plays a roll that ocean current at the bottom is 1/100th the speed of that of the surface which is what you are referencing. This would explain why the ocean floor is not smooth, but has all kinds of bumps, ridges, mountains, hills, valleys, etc. So with the ocean current being only at 0.02m/s at the bottom, and the continents only moving 1.5inches/year, and the tonnage of sediment deposited by Amazon and Congo rivers is high enough that A. They would have left a trail along the ocean floor as the continents drifted. B. The amount of sediment deposit showing today should be greater than approx. 4500 years worth of deposits.

Rivers themselves are not static features of geology either, if left undisturbed by humans a river will natural change it's own course.... .

There is no dispute with this, we can see where the mouth of a river has changed from 100 feet to 50 miles. My contention is that with satellite images, we see that adding up all the different mouths that a river has had through the millennia, there is still not enough sediment to establish a date older than roughly 4500 years. There just simply is not enough sediment.

Even if one argued that maybe the Mississippi exited out by Georgia, or the Pacific, the satellite images quickly disproves this conjecture because there are no remnant deposit deltas of where the Mississippi or some other river deposited.

Even if one argues that maybe the Mississippi is only 4500 years old, and another river that is extinct carried water and sediment off the continent 5000+ years ago. This is quickly shown to be false by satellite images as well. For there are no other unexplainable deltas of past rivers long extinct that use to flow into the Atlantic or Pacific.

Even if one argues that there were no rivers prior to 5000+ years. This is silly, because who wants to believe that there was no rain and no erosion on the continent for 120 million years as Pangaea broke apart, until the first rivers all around the earth all began at the same time roughly 4500 years ago. By the way, this was posed in the beginning by someone.

When you get right down to it, there is no getting around that all the oldest rivers around the globe, only have enough sediment deposit to suggest the continents were formed roughly 4500 years ago. And what global catastrophic event caused the break up of Pangaea? Genesis 7:11 Global flood. The Bible describes water burst out of the earth as well as rained down upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. That event occurred roughly 4500 years ago.
Hope that helps.

by the way, Pangaea is supported in the Bible. Genesis 1:9 "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”... So if the water is in one place, then the dry land is in the other one place. Hence Pangaea.

[universalchiro]

BigBallinStalin,
You asked how does subduction zones apply to my hypothesis?
I like your pictures you posted. And I agree with the information on them.
But have you noticed that I'm talking about the Atlantic ocean? The Atlantic ocean is a Divergent zone.

[BigBallinStalin]

BigBallinStalin,
You asked how does subduction zones apply to my hypothesis?
I like your pictures you posted. And I agree with the information on them.
But have you noticed that I'm talking about the Atlantic ocean? The Atlantic ocean is a Divergent zone.

So, if we applied your theory consistently, what implications does it have for every other ocean but for the Atlantic ocean?

[universalchiro]

I'm gonna give UC what he wants. You're right UC - Pangea was 4500 years ago and it broke up realllll quick during a worldwide flood.

Now assuming the above was serious (and no you do not have permission to selectively quote this post, all or nothing please), what do you think this proves?

(Whole post quoted )
It would prove that the earth is not as old as most people believe, which is a real problem for evolution. For evolution requires a lot of time.

The Bible describes that creation occurred roughly 6,000 years ago as Pangaea, the flood & break up of Pangaea roughly 4500 years ago, therefore if the information about all the deltas of rivers around the globe are all younger than 4500 years old, then this scientific, observable, testable evidence that corroborates the Bible.
Thank you for asking. I know you don't agree, its very fun to discuss back and forth the differing views. I'm not trying to convert, just discuss and share the science that I think supports a young earth creation model. I also know that I come across foolish to 95%, so thank you for discussing rather than just mocking me. Cheers

[BigBallinStalin]

Where does the Bible state explicitly that the continents were as one--as in "Pangaea"?

[universalchiro]

Where does the Bible state explicitly that the continents were as one--as in "Pangaea"?

Genesis 1:9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear. ...God called the dry land earth and the gathering of waters He called seas." If all the waters are gathered into one place, then the land was gathered into the other one place. I wouldn't say it was explicit, more deductive and implied. But it does explicitly say dry land as in singular , not let the dry lands appear. Seems trite, but the Hebrew is singular. remember this was written 3,500 years ago, some 1,000 years after the flood and the break up of Pangaea. They didn't have satellite images to know all the continents were one at one time, hence the divine inspiration of God directing Moses what to write.
Thank you for the good question versus just ridiculing me, I appreciate that

[Artimis]

BigBallinStalin,
You asked how does subduction zones apply to my hypothesis?
I like your pictures you posted. And I agree with the information on them.
But have you noticed that I'm talking about the Atlantic ocean? The Atlantic ocean is a Divergent zone.

Speaking of the Atlantic Ocean(I didn't quote the post above this post because this thread is messy enough already), you mention that the currents at the bottom of the ocean are 1/100th the speed they are at the surface. Does that mean you're suggesting that the rivers of note(the Amazon, the Mississippi, etc) and all the other river outlets are depositing their sediment *directly* at the bottom of the ocean? For me that assertion is in the same league of illogical hypothesis' as the as the Young Earth theory.

Click image to enlarge.

It'll be best if you download the above image and view it in zoomed out mode on the appropriate graphics application.


The idea that Pangea broke up a mere 4,500 years ago raises a host of it's own anomalies for subjects such as:

• Geology - Mountain formation, continental drift is a key factor in the formation of mountains in various locations in the world, which also raises unfortunate implications for past cartography efforts to map the geography of the time. That's before we get into the positioning of the landmasses.
• Biology - The divergence, isolation and subsequent evolution of species is not consistent with a starting point that existed a mere 4,500 years ago. Humans have been around for longer than that and the Dodo would never have existed long enough to get wiped out by Humans and their pets after 1662.
• Archaeology - The remains of ancient settlements dated at more than 4,500 years old in land masses that are submerged in the time of Pangea, also when Alexander the Great went through Persia and into India(circa 326 BC), he did so by land and not by ocean liner(See the animation in the link here: http://vimeo.com/14258924). Pay very close attention to the starting point for India.

I'm beginning to think that maybe you took Ice Age 4 a little too seriously. That's not how plate tectonics work, not now and not ever.

[crispybits]

I'm gonna give UC what he wants. You're right UC - Pangea was 4500 years ago and it broke up realllll quick during a worldwide flood.

Now assuming the above was serious (and no you do not have permission to selectively quote this post, all or nothing please), what do you think this proves?

(Whole post quoted )
It would prove that the earth is not as old as most people believe, which is a real problem for evolution. For evolution requires a lot of time.

The Bible describes that creation occurred roughly 6,000 years ago as Pangaea, the flood & break up of Pangaea roughly 4500 years ago, therefore if the information about all the deltas of rivers around the globe are all younger than 4500 years old, then this scientific, observable, testable evidence that corroborates the Bible.
Thank you for asking. I know you don't agree, its very fun to discuss back and forth the differing views. I'm not trying to convert, just discuss and share the science that I think supports a young earth creation model. I also know that I come across foolish to 95%, so thank you for discussing rather than just mocking me. Cheers

"It would prove the Earth is not as old as people believe." No, no it really wouldn't. I have never heard of anyone, geologist or not, suggest that the way we date the Earth is by counting back the speed of continental drift to Pangea. Pangea isn't even the first super-continent. Using the same science we use to prove Pangea existed and how everything slotted together (like looking for identical rock formations on different sides of oceans, or looking at the magnetic orientation of certain minerals to determine their latitude at different times for example) we can prove that this is a cyclical event, and that we have previously had super-continents in other positions on the globe (the most recent of them before Pangea is called Rodinia if you want to look it up). How do we fit the scientific evidence for these earlier super-continents into your model? When every relevant branch of mainstream science agrees and can justify their position that these super-continents happen roughly every 4-500 million years, and that we have evidence for both of the last 2 super-continents, how is it scientific to claim that the Bible, which suggests that God made the first one fresh and new, is revealing fact when it doesn't say anything about previous land/sea cycles?

I like these discussions not because I enjoy arguing with people like you, but because it forces me to go out and learn more stuff. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I know a hell of a lot more now about biology than I did before thanks to having to research to find out if your claims are genuine or not about evolution. I'm not a geologist, but even now I learned that there's a whole branch of science devoted to tracking back the positions of land masses at different times just by looking at the magnetic orientation of their rocks. The thing that frustrates people about YECs isnt that you exist and that you dare speak your mind, evangelising your faith or not, it's that you really, really, really, really don't seem to understand how science works.

(Prove me wrong, link to to one single post about some YEC tenet or another that we've showed why it's faulty in these forums (i.e. all of them) where you've come back and said anything remotely along the lines of "oh, you know what if that's true then I must be mistaken on this issue, let me go away and modify my theory to better fit the evidence")

[crispybits]

By the way, as per your original question, and the reason you should be saying "oh, you know what if that's true then I must be mistaken on this issue, let me go away and modify my theory to better fit the evidence" in this instance, you could do worse than to download the following powerpoint slides:

Linky

To paraphrase the main most relevant points:

- Suspended sediment from the river plume flocculates and settles out along the delta and northwest along the continental shelf with decreasing grain size distally (Gibbs and Konwar, 1986 ; de Alencar Costa and Figueiredo, 1998).

- Northwest of the Amazon River is the longest continuous accretionary mud coastline in the world (Allison et al., 2000; Wells and Coleman, 1981; Rine and Ginsburg, 1985)

- The sediments from the Amazon River travel in two basic forms: (1) as suspended sediment and (2) as mudbanks

- If the current data are accurate, and the sedimentation and erosion patterns along the coastal shelf do not change the sediments from the Amazon River, and those being eroded from the nearby shelf, will continue moving northwest along the coast.

In a single sentence, the vast majority of the sediment carried by the Amazon river is further carried by ocean currents around the coast to the north and west where it forms mudbanks and can travel anywhere up to 1600km before it settles out of the water.

show

[AndyDufresne]

flocculates

I don't know if I can trust anything crispybits says, if he is going to use words like this. He's obviously in on the greater conspiracy. Open your eyes, peeps.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Flocculates was Gibbs and Konwar not me - I even gave my reference source - sheesh!

[chang50]

By the way, as per your original question, and the reason you should be saying "oh, you know what if that's true then I must be mistaken on this issue, let me go away and modify my theory to better fit the evidence" in this instance, you could do worse than to download the following powerpoint slides:

Linky

To paraphrase the main most relevant points:

- Suspended sediment from the river plume flocculates and settles out along the delta and northwest along the continental shelf with decreasing grain size distally (Gibbs and Konwar, 1986 ; de Alencar Costa and Figueiredo, 1998).

- Northwest of the Amazon River is the longest continuous accretionary mud coastline in the world (Allison et al., 2000; Wells and Coleman, 1981; Rine and Ginsburg, 1985)

- The sediments from the Amazon River travel in two basic forms: (1) as suspended sediment and (2) as mudbanks

- If the current data are accurate, and the sedimentation and erosion patterns along the coastal shelf do not change the sediments from the Amazon River, and those being eroded from the nearby shelf, will continue moving northwest along the coast.

In a single sentence, the vast majority of the sediment carried by the Amazon river is further carried by ocean currents around the coast to the north and west where it forms mudbanks and can travel anywhere up to 1600km before it settles out of the water.

Crispy,it won't matter how much good solid reliable science you bring to this discussion,UC cannot ever agree with you because he has made an enormous personal emotional investment in his YEC.There is just too much at stake..

[crispybits]

I know, I've seen him do it many times on other topics, but I'm an evangelical rationalist, it's my moral duty to keep trying - to keep asking the question "does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?" (in whatever form). It's then up to the believer to decide whether they prefer the ease and comfort of their holy book with all the "answers", or whether they would prefer to face the more difficult task of admitting ignorance and actually educating themselves in what reality actually shows us.

[mrswdk]

So what you are saying is that religious people are ignorant and wrong, and you are trying to show them the light. Interesting.

[crispybits]

For given values of ignorant (as in I wasnt trying to be offensive), yes. And I'm not showing them any light, I'm just asking them if they prefer truth or comfort. If they prefer to stay comfortably ignorant and wrong then that's entirely up to them, I certainly don't threaten them with eternal punishment if they happen to not agree with me

[AndyDufresne]

I certainly don't threaten them with eternal punishment if they happen to not agree with me

Certainly sounds like you are flocculating them with all your posts. Burn him!


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Where does the Bible state explicitly that the continents were as one--as in "Pangaea"?

Genesis 1:9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear. ...God called the dry land earth and the gathering of waters He called seas." If all the waters are gathered into one place, then the land was gathered into the other one place. I wouldn't say it was explicit, more deductive and implied. But it does explicitly say dry land as in singular , not let the dry lands appear. Seems trite, but the Hebrew is singular. remember this was written 3,500 years ago, some 1,000 years after the flood and the break up of Pangaea. They didn't have satellite images to know all the continents were one at one time, hence the divine inspiration of God directing Moses what to write.
Thank you for the good question versus just ridiculing me, I appreciate that

That quote's pretty vague.

It would also suggest that the earth appeared like an inverse Pangeae, where the land surrounds all the seas.

Why call the 'gathering of waters' 'seas'? Isn't it just one sea?

Also, if you place X in one place and Y in the other place, it doesn't follow that you'll have X surrounded by Y--where X is a pangaea. You could simply be describing the current distribution of continents too. It's too vague, so why use this book? (Because it's open to subjective interpretation, thus enabling the reader to confirm a wide range of whatever he wants).

[khazalid]

therein lies the rub. your christianity is as cerebral as you wanna be, baby.

laudate dominum!

[mrswdk]

Well see, here's a video:



This guy references geologists and plate tectonics to draw the conclusion that there are as many continents as you want there to be. That's what science has to say: 'make up the answer that suits you'. universalchiro is correct to ignore the pseudo-intellectualism that science fundamentalists such as crispybits are peddling in this thread.

[Artimis]

Well see, here's a video:



This guy references geologists and plate tectonics to draw the conclusion that there are as many continents as you want there to be. That's what science has to say: 'make up the answer that suits you'. universalchiro is correct to ignore the pseudo-intellectualism that science fundamentalists such as crispybits are peddling in this thread.

The tectonic plate based definition was my understanding of what a continent is. But..... if the experts aren't really sure then what hope will I have? If I persist with the tectonic plate definition of what a continent is without basing that assertion on a solid logical premise that I'm just being as dogmatic as universalchiro.

[chang50]

Well see, here's a video:



This guy references geologists and plate tectonics to draw the conclusion that there are as many continents as you want there to be. That's what science has to say: 'make up the answer that suits you'. universalchiro is correct to ignore the pseudo-intellectualism that science fundamentalists such as crispybits are peddling in this thread.

Science fundamentalists?Science has always thrived on and gained strength from competing theories and ways of classifying..move along folks,nothing to see here..

[chang50]

For given values of ignorant (as in I wasnt trying to be offensive), yes. And I'm not showing them any light, I'm just asking them if they prefer truth or comfort. If they prefer to stay comfortably ignorant and wrong then that's entirely up to them, I certainly don't threaten them with eternal punishment if they happen to not agree with me

Whilst the threat of eternal punishment isn't nice it's nothing compared to the real physical danger atheists can be in living in Muslim societies..

[crispybits]

Well see, here's a video:



This guy references geologists and plate tectonics to draw the conclusion that there are as many continents as you want there to be. That's what science has to say: 'make up the answer that suits you'. universalchiro is correct to ignore the pseudo-intellectualism that science fundamentalists such as crispybits are peddling in this thread.

Ah yes the "this word has more than one meaning/definition in different contexts" problem. Well I guess we could just remove every word/concept that falls foul of this from being valid in terms of scientific discussion. So lets see we lose continents obviously, we'll have to find new words to define these different ways of spliiting the world up (cultoninents / tectoninents / geontinents / etc). Crane can no longer be used, we'll either have to reclassify the bird or the device for lifting items. Point can no longer be the action of positioning your finger/arm and the sharp bit on the end of something. Type can no longer be what I'm doing for this post and a classification word. Right can no longer be the direction opposite left and being correct about something. Oh and God, we're gonna need to stop using that too until everyone can agree on a single definition. We've had that thread in here too, and the believers failed to come up with a single, solid and meaningful definition, and that's just amongst active posters here, you can imagine the problem if we multiply that number up into the billions worldwide.

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning, maybe even ask the person using it to clarify which definition of the word they mean. There is no problem unless we use two different definitions/contexts within the same discussion without being clear about the difference. Funnily enough, the best example I can think of for that practice is the creationists and the word "theory". Go figure...