Mud from rivers into the oceans

[_sabotage_]

I had to write my sustainability exam on financial programs to combat man-made climate change. My politics exam asked: what is the role of the US in world politics and how is it changing?

They gave me very low marks and I should have failed, but somehow I got a B - in both.

[crispybits]

Evolution is certainly a laughable theory.

So as not to derail this thread, could you please start a new thread on why you think the theory of Evolution is so laughable so we can all argue in peace and quiet elsewhere without annoying other posters here?

P.S. I'll see you there when you get started.

No need for another new thread - there's already this one (and this is just one of the more recent ones)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182529

[universalchiro]

Artimis,
I see your point. You are saying that because there is so much pressure at the bottom of the ocean, that 120 million years worth of sediment has been squished and compressed & pushed down to appear like 4500 years worth of sediment. I understand your premise , but the inference is wrong. And here's why: the silt and sediment is filled with water & that water is exerting a pressure out. Its the same reason that fish & creatures alive at the bottom of the ocean are not squished, compressed & pressed down by the huge amounts of pressure.

So respectfully I see your point, but its not accurate. but it would be valid if river sediment was void of water and filled with air. Then it would apply. Just remember the creatures at the bottom of the ocean & it will make sense

[crispybits]

[citation needed]

[Artimis]

Artimis,
I see your point. You are saying that because there is so much pressure at the bottom of the ocean, that 120 million years worth of sediment has been squished and compressed & pushed down to appear like 4500 years worth of sediment. I understand your premise , but the inference is wrong. And here's why: the silt and sediment is filled with water & that water is exerting a pressure out. Its the same reason that fish & creatures alive at the bottom of the ocean are not squished, compressed & pressed down by the huge amounts of pressure.

So respectfully I see your point, but its not accurate. but it would be valid if river sediment was void of water and filled with air. Then it would apply. Just remember the creatures at the bottom of the ocean & it will make sense

I get bored with one trick ponies very quickly. Again, about the sediment , I'm reposting the link on sedimentary rock formation and quoting a specific section of text, personally I'd like you read the whole thing, but that's up to you.
http://www.rocksandminerals4u.com/sedimentary_rocks.html

Lithification
Lithification is the changing of sediments into rock. There are two processes involved in this change. They are compaction and cementation.

Compaction occurs after the sediments have been deposited. The weight of the sediments squeezes the particles together. When more and more sediments are deposited on top, the weight on the sediments below increases. Waterborne sediments become so tightly squeezed together that most of the water is pushed out.

Cementation happens when dissolved minerals fill in the spaces between the sediment particles. These liquid minerals act as glue or cement to bind the sediments together.

Compaction is what I've been citing most of the time, however, cementation is just as effective. But enough about sediments already, I'm waiting for you to attempt to refute:-

• the action of living organisms(plants included of course) as they gobble up sediments in search for nutrients
• the validity and accuracy of ancient maps made centuries ago
• the accounts of explorations by significant figures in history(geographical anomalies and mode of travel anomalies)
• the climate record data we have from tree rings and ice cores(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)
• the geological record of various rocks with trace magnetic properties used to determine the position of land masses before recorded history
• the second law of thermodynamics

And of course there is the archaeological record, ancient civilisations have one thing in common with modern civilisations; bureaucracy. They kept records, so you would think that the archaeologists studying Egypt, Mayan, Aztec or even Ancient Greek civilisations would have something to say if all those societies recorded extreme seismic activity all at same time during their history.

By the way, I want to see some citations also.

[AndyDufresne]

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thanks old proverb reappropriated by Longfellow.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Seems now that everyone has started asking UC to back up his claims with their source data he's got nothing left to say...

[Artimis]

Did we just kill this thread with a bunch of evidence citation requests?..... GOOD!

[universalchiro]

1.
The image clearly shows the lack of sediment. It is completely valid to say a hypothesis, in this case 120 million years from Pangaea, is invalid from arguing the absence of Sediment.

The satellite images reveal that deltas expand over large areas indicating the deltas modify from time to time. but taking the sum, still is roughly 4500 years of sediment..


You want evidence:
A. a picture is worth a 1,000 words.
B. http://lacoast.gov/new/about/basin_data/mr/default.aspx
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act's, managing Agency filed a report regarding the Mississippi River Delta Basin. They corroborate a young Mississippi River saying that the river formed 5000 years ago when the oceans rose. Since the Mississippi has more sediment deposit than most river, except the Asain ganges and yellow rivers, than the other rivers have to be young as well.

Seems crispybits will dogmatically attempt to prove anything and everything wrong before he even gets the information, this represents a dogmatic closed mind. Artimis (even though we disagree), he brings logical debates and reason at least, you guys can learn from him. For he seems that he is still seeking truth and if he determines that his position is false, he will give it up. But others seem too closed minded to bring evidence back and forth. I hear atheist complaining about Bible thumpers this way, but many times atheist are equally guilty of dogmatic blind faith.

I will give kudos to Chang, frigidis, BBS and crispybits for at least being polite with your disagreements with me. So keep up the good job there...

[Frigidus]

B. http://lacoast.gov/new/about/basin_data/mr/default.aspx
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act's, managing Agency filed a report regarding the Mississippi River Delta Basin. They corroborate a young Mississippi River saying that the river formed 5000 years ago when the oceans rose.

I'm going to quote your article for reference.

The Mississippi River has had a profound effect on the landforms of coastal Louisiana. The entire area is the product of sediment deposition following the latest rise in sea level about 5,000 years ago. Each Mississippi River deltaic cycle was initiated by a gradual capture of the Mississippi River by a distributary which offered a shorter route to the Gulf of Mexico. After abandonment of an older delta lobe, which would cut off the primary supply of fresh water and sediment, an area would undergo compaction, subsidence, and erosion. The old delta lobe would begin to retreat as the gulf advanced, forming lakes, bays, and sounds. Concurrently, a new delta lobe would begin its advance gulfward. This deltaic process has, over the past 5,000 years, caused the coastline of south Louisiana to advance gulfward from 15 to 50 miles, forming the present-day coastal plain.

Now, this does not say that the Mississippi River was formed 5000 years ago. Rather, it is saying that the part of coastal Lousiana at the Mississippi River's delta has been expanding due to sediment deposit for the last 5,000 years. The Mississippi River as we know it came into being following the last ice age, which ended roughly 10,000 years ago (see page 2 of this for the timeline I'm working off of). Another source I've found points out that "Various forms of the Mississippi River have flowed through our area for more than a million years, but the Upper Mississippi River Valley as we know it was primarily shaped during the most recent glacial stage of the Great Ice Age, The Wisconsin period."

Do you have a source that specifically states the Mississippi River itself is only 5,000 years old?

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, surprise, surprise. UC failed. Show's over; pack your shit, kids. Time to go home.

[Artimis]

show: latest post by UC

Oh dear, here we go again.

So just because we can't find a tree older than 200 years in Nottingham forest means that Nottingham forest didn't exist until 200 years ago, right? That's the logic you're applying to sediment deposits on the Atlantic ocean floor.

I see you're very seriously obsessing about sediment to the most unhealthy degree, so before you get stuck in that rut again, we're going to move onto the paleontological record for the West Coast of Africa and the East Coast of South America. Why? Because if West Africa and South America split a mere 4,500 years then the geological records and the fossil records SHOULD be exactly the same on both sides of the Atlantic, right up until the landmass split apart 4,500 years ago. Carbon dating should verify that specimens of animal remains, plant remains, pollen grains and even fungal spores of various species buried in this region circa 4,500 years ago will be found in both continents. As opposed to having to dig down to a depth to find rock that was formed 120 million years ago to find identical fossil and geological specimens.

I've been googling, can't seem to find anything that shows Stratigraphy studies that indicate that Africa and South America were still intact up until 4,500 years ago(no surprise there then). I did find this one article that shows that Africa and South America may have still been connected by a land bridge as late as 95 million years ago(URL link), but you're talking about thousands so that doesn't even count, even before I point out the lack of references.

So what have you got to show that shows that Africa and South America were clutched together right up until 4,500 years ago? I mean actual solid proof in the form of rock samples on both sides of the Atlantic that were formed under the same conditions in the same region right up until the split a mere 4,500 years ago.

Dispense with the "You should open your eye and look at the world" dodge as well, I'm not paying for a flight to Africa and then a flight to South America, put your cards on the table and show me what you've got, the Bible does not count by the way, unless it contains detailed records of geological samples taken prior to the break up of Pangea.

Also there is this list for you, please do attempt to refute:-

• the validity and accuracy of ancient maps made centuries ago
• the accounts of explorations by significant figures in history(geographical anomalies and mode of travel anomalies)
• the climate record data we have from tree rings and ice cores(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)
• the geological record of various rocks with trace magnetic properties used to determine the position of land masses before recorded history
• the second law of thermodynamics

And of course there is the archaeological record, ancient civilisations have one thing in common with modern civilisations; bureaucracy. They kept records, so you would think that the archaeologists studying Egypt, Mayan, Aztec or even Ancient Greek civilisations would have something to say if all those societies recorded extreme seismic activity all at same time during their history.

[Metsfanmax]

1.
The image clearly shows the lack of sediment. It is completely valid to say a hypothesis, in this case 120 million years from Pangaea, is invalid from arguing the absence of Sediment.

The satellite images reveal that deltas expand over large areas indicating the deltas modify from time to time. but taking the sum, still is roughly 4500 years of sediment..

This is not an image but a map, which could not possibly display the detail that you are looking for. Please show an actual image that would have displayed the sediment if it were there.

[AndyDufresne]

This just in, rivers aren't always in the same place: After Floods, Some Colo. Rivers Aren't Where They Used To Be [NPR Article]


--Andy

[Frigidus]

B. http://lacoast.gov/new/about/basin_data/mr/default.aspx

By the way, this link suggests that somewhere between 15 to 50 miles of shoreline has been created by sedimentary deposits along the delta of the Mississippi River, so wouldn't your own source at least partially answer the "where's the sediment" question? Not sure how I missed this the other day.

[_sabotage_]

I think his point is that; yes there is 15-50 miles of land created by the mouth of the Mississippi, and therefore if the Atlantic was diverging at 1.5 cm per year, it would had sufficient time to build land in a trail from its previous position to its current.

[universalchiro]

Bingo! That's one of the contentions. Well said sabotage.
The other is that the deltas that have formed, doesn't have enough sediment to support an age greater than roughly 4500 years...
There is no getting around it: A picture is worth a 1,000 words:

call it a map or what ever term you want, this is the revealed evidence. It's there and it refutes 120 million year old break from Pangaea...

[Artimis]

Bingo! That's one of the contentions. Well said sabotage.
The other is that the deltas that have formed, doesn't have enough sediment to support an age greater than roughly 4500 years...
There is no getting around it: A picture is worth a 1,000 words:

Click image to enlarge.

call it a map or what ever term you want, this is the revealed evidence. It's there and it refutes 120 million year old break from Pangaea...

So you're just going to ignore my post asking for 4,500 year old geological and paleontological evidence that the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa were clutched together until the supposed break up a mere 4,500 years ago?

The logic being that if both continents were holding hands at the time then animal, plant and fungal species that died and got buried in what was once one land mass would appear in the strata of both South America and Africa all the way up until the segment that is dated at less than 4,500 years old.

Well, that evidence is not there either, so by that logic I am henceforth discounting your entire theory of creation on the basis of that complete and total lack of some very specific and highly selective type of evidence to the exclusion of all else. -Incidentally that's what you've been doing this entire thread on the basis of no sediment on the Atlantic ocean floor older than 4,500 years, very specifically and highly selective to the exclusion of all explanations put forward to account for the absence of older sediment on the Atlantic ocean floor.

Here is the rest of the list to provide you with excellent opportunity to completely ignore it again:

Also there is this list for you, please do attempt to refute:-

• the validity and accuracy of ancient maps made centuries ago
• the accounts of explorations by significant figures in history(geographical anomalies and mode of travel anomalies)
• the climate record data we have from tree rings and ice cores(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)
• the geological record of various rocks with trace magnetic properties used to determine the position of land masses before recorded history
• the second law of thermodynamics

And of course there is the archaeological record, ancient civilisations have one thing in common with modern civilisations; bureaucracy. They kept records, so you would think that the archaeologists studying Egypt, Mayan, Aztec or even Ancient Greek civilisations would have something to say if all those societies recorded extreme seismic activity all at same time during their history.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is why no one takes you seriously, UC. You'll repeat your argument ad nauseum with little regard to any legitimate criticism. Would you consider such a strategy to be open-minded?

[Frigidus]

This is why no one takes you seriously, UC. You'll repeat your argument ad nauseum with little regard to any legitimate criticism. Would you consider such a strategy to be open-minded?

Stop being so closed-minded about his open-mindedness.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is why no one takes you seriously, UC. You'll repeat your argument ad nauseum with little regard to any legitimate criticism. Would you consider such a strategy to be open-minded?

Stop being so closed-minded about his open-mindedness.

[Artimis]

I got a wall message from UC saying he didn't get back to the points I raised because he was using his cell phone(iPhone or some variant thereof?) and couldn't do it justice. I'll just have to wait until he gets to a desktop computer, can't say I'm a fan of web browsing on mobile phones either. Anything that needs a magnifying glass to view the screen is not really suited to reading detailed posts in a forum.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll remember to use that next time people are pressuring me. I'll try it in the RL too.


"Why didn't you pull over sooner? Didn't you see my flashing lights?"

I'm sorry, officer. I was using my cell phone (iPhone or some variant thereof?) and couldn't do it justice.

[AndyDufresne]

Can't let this topic die!

Quick, bring in the sediment!






--Andy

[mrswdk]

Wow, a talking monkey!