Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:32 am**

The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the tectonic plates moving the Continents were initiated 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why isn'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 tectonic plates moving the continents, broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to it's current position? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
Since the tectonic plates moving the continents are traveling at a rate of 1.5 inches per year and this rate is slow enough to establish river deltas today, then why didn't they leave a trail of sediment as the continents moved?

My hypothesis is that the tectonic plates moving the continents moved very quickly within 1 years time, instead of over 120 million years time. When? About 4500 years ago at the time of Genesis 7 Flood. Where God caused the fountains of the deep to burst violently out of the earth and rain down upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. This fast break up of Pangaea at the Noah's flood, caused the Indian tectonic plate to crash into the Asian plate and force the mountains up to form the Himalayas.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:06 am**

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?

Maybe the earth is only 4,500 years old??

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:14 am**

You expect 120 million years' worth of sediment flow to just build up into a giant underwater mountain or something?

Did the Amazon or Mississippi rivers even exist when Pangea split?

That's enough horseshit science for today.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:23 am**

mrswdk wrote:You expect 120 million years' worth of sediment flow to just build up into a giant underwater mountain or something?

Did the Amazon or Mississippi rivers even exist when Pangea split?

That's enough horseshit science for today.

No,UC is on to something here,a giant conspiracy involving x thousands of scientists trying to dupe us all with their atheist evilutionist agendas,why didn't I see it earlier?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:28 am**

-deleted-

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:34 am**

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Chang would rather mock, than actually answer the question. Whether this is because of an ineptitude to do so is the million dollar question

Do you believe the overwhelming majority of scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to mislead us for whatever reason or are they just mistaken?I am assuming you don't think they are correct about the age of the Earth..

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:25 am**

Why do you assume that the sediment gets as far as the mouth of a river and stops? What about ocean currents? Also what about the fact that some rocks, like limestone and dolomite, will over time dissolve like a slow version of one of those fizzy aspirins?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:19 am**

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?

Scientifically speaking, this is as useful as a skit on Sesame Street. If you are looking for even a reasonable discussion on it, I think you'll need at least a bad source and something more than what is here, which is your conjecture.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:57 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:15 am**

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?

River sediment is not that simple and your expectations of residual delta mud is flawed. South America and Africa have similar mineral concentrations, large manganese deposits are one geological feature of both.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:28 am**

This thread, like the Darwin one, should have been strangled at birth. Everyone out and stop fuelling the flames of chiro's insanity.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:50 am**

mrswdk wrote:This thread, like the Darwin one, should have been strangled at birth. Everyone out and stop fuelling the flames of chiro's insanity.

Ah, but its fun.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:14 am**

-deleted-

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:14 pm**

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 hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations. But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth, so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits. I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.

Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:22 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
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 hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations. But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth, so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits. I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.

Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?

He's kind of like Lionz, in that he won't address the good questions--especially if they contradict his perspective, and then he'll follow up with more questions. There's no learning going on with this one.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:39 pm**

universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits

How do you figure this? What is 40,000, 400,000 or 400,000,000 years of river deposits supposed look like?

You imagine the physical appearance of a dry planet, but have you taken into account a time when more regions were actually submerged and fins & gills were common attributes of living things?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:17 pm**

Fun fact: rivers don't follow the exact same paths for ever and ever. The Amazon actually flowed into the Pacific when it first came into being.

Although yes, my understanding of this particular topic also relies heavily on spooky teleporting river mouths, so if you don't believe in magic then you may not see entirely eye-to-eye with me.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:57 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
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 hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations. But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth, so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits. I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.

Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?

He's kind of like Lionz, in that he won't address the good questions--especially if they contradict his perspective, and then he'll follow up with more questions. There's no learning going on with this one.

Lionz would throw in a lot of 'maybe's and 'perhaps's so that he could always back off of any statement he made. Chiro is a little easier to dissect since he takes a firm stance.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:00 pm**

To the OP, something to consider, rivers move. They move a lot, especially the Mississippi river. As in move I don't mean just flowing downstream, but the actual river bed moves. Where the mouth of a river exists today is not usually where it existed a thousand, two thousand, etc. years ago.

Think about it, as the river deposits build and build it diverts the river eventually. Not to mention plenty of other geological reasons river beds move. Mostly this takes a lot of time to happen, sometimes it happens suddenly. The Mississippi itself we've actually witnessed course changes that happened suddenly, like back in 1876 where a section of the river just changed course and a new river channel formed.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:03 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
He's kind of like Lionz, in that he won't address the good questions--especially if they contradict his perspective, and then he'll follow up with more questions. There's no learning going on with this one.

Lionz would throw in a lot of 'maybe's and 'perhaps's so that he could always back off of any statement he made. Chiro is a little easier to dissect since he takes a firm stance.

Ah, good point!

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:59 pm**

The title of this topic sounds poetic, so props for that. I like it.

show

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:12 am**

oVo wrote:
universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits

How do you figure this? What is 40,000, 400,000 or 400,000,000 years of river deposits supposed look like?

This is a wise question.
We are able to observe, discern, calculate and measure the rate of deposits out of the mouth of rivers to form deltas. Utilizing this rate of deposit and viewing satellite images from NASA, there is but a simple conclusion, the amount of delta deposit, divided by the rate of deposit = a very young age. Not 120 million years, not even 1 million years, not even 100,000 years, not even 10,000 years, but roughly 4,500 years.

An explanation of, "well maybe the location of the mouth of the river changed", well rivers are dynamic for sure, and small changes of 50ft to 50 miles happens, but the sediment flowing from the river to it's destination remains close enough to still calculate and add up all small changes in the deltas. And the amount doesn't exceed roughly 4,500 years. Plus NASA satellite images removes the guessing game and the maybe,what it games, and reveals that the deltas of the oldest rivers of the world have not changed. And the amount of sediment in the Deltas of the Nile, Amazon, Congo, Mississippi, Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow, etc. do not exceed the approximate timeline of 4,500 years of age.

So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:17 am**

All rivers are, naturally, constant and unchanging [Source]

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:19 am**

universalchiro wrote:
oVo wrote:
universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits

How do you figure this? What is 40,000, 400,000 or 400,000,000 years of river deposits supposed look like?

This is a wise question.
We are able to observe, discern, calculate and measure the rate of deposits out of the mouth of rivers to form deltas. Utilizing this rate of deposit and viewing satellite images from NASA, there is but a simple conclusion, the amount of delta deposit, divided by the rate of deposit = a very young age. Not 120 million years, not even 1 million years, not even 100,000 years, not even 10,000 years, but roughly 4,500 years.

An explanation of, "well maybe the location of the mouth of the river changed", well rivers are dynamic for sure, and small changes of 50ft to 50 miles happens, but the sediment flowing from the river to it's destination remains close enough to still calculate and add up all small changes in the deltas. And the amount doesn't exceed roughly 4,500 years. Plus NASA satellite images removes the guessing game and the maybe,what it games, and reveals that the deltas of the oldest rivers of the world have not changed. And the amount of sediment in the Deltas of the Nile, Amazon, Congo, Mississippi, Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow, etc. do not exceed the approximate timeline of 4,500 years of age.

So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:42 pm**

So when talking about things like radiometric dating, the line is "well you can't assume things have always been constant, in the past the rate of this or that might have been much higher/lower", but when it suits we switch to "assuming the rate of this going back as long as it suits me is constant I can draw THIS conclusion"

Funny

Conquer Club

Mud from rivers into the oceans

Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans