Posted on 11/10/2009 8:45:14 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
You are fuoll of excrement!
I have seen 10 times what you have seen, and the real difference is that I understand what is happening and you are hypnotized by the psuedo-science hype.
Everything that we see on this planet has been shaped in the last 4500 years. The physical evidence says it, and God’s word agrees.
If your position were half true, the oceans would have turned to swamps 50 million years ago from weather erosion. That is an undeniable fact.
Water cannot erode basalt without a pre-existing slope and a huge supply of large hard sediment. Basalt is seriously tough material. I have burned away two or three new moil points just breaking enough of a 3 foot lense of basalt away to install a two foot trench through it. I’ve broken tiger teeth off of a backhoe bucket just trying to scoop the debris out of a trench.
You have no concept of what you’re talking about. No old-earther does. You just take the propaganda and run with it because its what you want desperately to believe. Its your false religion.
All this tripe you are posting that tell people that you have no knowledge of basic geology whatsoever.
And you call yourself a surveyor.
Uh, no, it's not. The ocean floor is under a continuous cycle of regeneration due to plate tectonics - and the sediments that accumulate on the ocean floors ends up accreting against continental margins around subduction zones.
Once again, your deliberate ignorance about geology is staggering.
“You are fuoll of excrement!
I have seen 10 times what you have seen, and the real difference is that I understand what is happening and you are hypnotized by the psuedo-science hype.
Everything that we see on this planet has been shaped in the last 4500 years. The physical evidence says it, and God’s word agrees.
If your position were half true, the oceans would have turned to swamps 50 million years ago from weather erosion. That is an undeniable fact.”
Coming from the guy who claims that Africa and South America drifted apart to their current positions in about a year, that´s quite an ironic post.
And there are two major problems with such an assertion (beyond the lack of a realistic mechanism to make such happen rapidly).
First, the depth of deep ocean sediments increases the further you get away from the spreading centers - if the opening had happened over a year, the depth of such sediments would be fairly constant.
And then there is that pesky paleomagnetism of the oceanic crust - mirroring magnetic reversal over millions of years - a finding that finally confirmed plate tectonics.
But what do I know? I'm just looking at the science, not the fiction.
Great points. I stopped thinking the issue through when I realised that at the speed he was inferring I could have water ski´d merely by planting a stake in the beach, hitching a rope and heading out into the surf - assuming I could survive the resulting vulcanism, steam and general all round apocalypse.
The Beryllium-10 Bump
The geomagnetic reversal was not directly measured in the Dome C ice core. It is a deduction based on a slight increase in the abundance of the radioactive isotope beryllium-10 measured down the core, or a beryllium-10 bump, assumed correlated to the Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic reversal.3 This reversal is the last major reversal in the uniformitarian geological timescale before the recent period. The geological column contains dozens of paleomagnetic reversals, assumed to be caused by reversals of the Earth’s magnetic poles. The subject of reversals, and how they fit into the Creation-Flood model is beyond the scope of this article. Russell Humphreys has a good hypothesis on their cause during and right after the Genesis Flood.4
Beryllium-10 is a cosmogenic radioactive isotope formed by cosmic rays in the same manner carbon-14.5 Unlike carbon-14, it is scavenged from the atmosphere in about three weeks to one year. Beryllium-10 has a half life of 1.5 million years.6
However, the researchers arrived at this beryllium-10 bump by indirect methods. First, the bottom of the core between 3,100 and 3,190 meters contains many surprisingly beryllium-10 spikes or strong increases in concentration, making the background analysis of beryllium-10 in the core difficult: “However, their [the spikes] presence makes it very difficult to evaluate the production rate trends in the 10Be profile, which is what interests us here.”7 The origin of these spikes is unknown, but believed to be due to some sort of concentration variation on short spatial scales. So, the researchers apparently ignored the spikes in their calculations, which, in my opinion, is a questionable procedure.
The plot of beryllium-10 at the assumed age of the Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic reversal does not look significant. So, the researchers used the medians rather than the means of five measurements within each 55-centimeter long core sample. This procedure reduces the effects of small spikes left in the profile. However, it enhanced the beryllium-10 profile at the desired location at 3,160 meters—again, I would submit, a questionable procedure.
But, there were also enhanced beryllium-10 values at 3,100 and 3,180 meters in the ice core. Why wouldn’t these peaks be the sought-after Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic reversal, especially since there are a number of “paleomagnetic excursions” in the normal period since the Matuyama-Brunhes reversal.8 An excursion can be thought of as a decrease in paleomagnetic intensity, assumed to be caused by a failed reversal. Why couldn’t any of these many excursions be correlated to the beryllium-10 bump at 3,160 meters in the Dome C ice core?
Aaaaaand yet more ASSUMPTIONS made by old earth age advocates:
A Major Theoretical Problem
The researchers have a major theoretical problem. They assume that during a geomagnetic pole reversal, the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field decreases tenfold, which allows more cosmic rays to form beryllium-10. The problem is that the effect supposedly occurs only equatorward of 60° latitude, which means that there should be no change in beryllium-10 production above the Antarctic Ice Sheet during a reversal!7,9 So, the process of increasing the concentration over Antarctica under these circumstances becomes speculative, although the formation of beryllium-10, its poleward transport, climatic effects, and its deposition on the ice are complicated and poorly understood.5,10,11
They justify the increase in beryllium-10 at the presumed Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic reversal by pointing to a spike in beryllium-10 at about 40,000 years, corresponding to the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion, within their timescale for the Antarctic Vostok ice core. There is another spike at about 60,000 years.11 Each spike supposedly lasted one to two thousand years. These spikes are also found in deep-sea cores.12,13 Researchers use these Vostok spikes as reference horizons to date other ice cores. However, such correlations have not fared well since the spikes are only about twice background levels, there are other spikes but not as high as the two spikes, the spikes are absent where expected in other cores, and they are located at the wrong times in other cores.11
And for our viewing pleasure- even more ASSUMPTIONS factored into the mix:
What about the old dates of hundreds of thousands of years obtained in Antarctica ice cores? How legitimate are these? First, Antarctic ice cores are not dated by counting annual layers, as is supposedly done in Greenland ice cores, because the snowfall is too light on top of Antarctica. The claimed counting in Greenland cores is based on many assumptions, especially the assumption that the ice is old to begin with.16 Dome C, as well as Vostok, is dated by ice flow modeling and wiggle matching of oxygen or deuterium isotope plots from deep-sea cores: “On the basis of ice flow modelling and a comparison between the deuterium signal in the ice with climate records from marine sediment cores, the ice at a depth of 3,190 m in the Dome C core is believed to have been deposited around 800,000 years ago.”5
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/28/still-trying
The discovery that underwater landslides (“turbidity currents”) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).
Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
I don’t get it, (very interesting examples by the way). Are you saying this occurred over a slow period of time or is the result of catastrophism? I’m seriously interested.
Thank you ...
Okay, now I see your argument. But water always follows the path of least resistance, there are always valleys or gaps in ridges and mountains. What’s to make you think the water eroded slowly an uplifted land mass rather than is just flowing through natural valleys already there?
Once again you have misdirected, and glossed over the reality to support your unsupportable fairy tale.
How so? Please expand on your thoughts. Did you fail to read the "if" or is is it some other misreading?
Well, without even looking at plate tectonics, let's see how completely made-up your original claim was.
If your position were half true, the oceans would have turned to swamps 50 million years ago from weather erosion. That is an undeniable fact.
Undeniable fact? Accoding to Google searches, from three different sources, the average depth of the oceans is from 3,700 meters to 4,000 meters. And the average elevation of land on this planet is 840 meters. Considering that oceans cover about 70 percent of the Earth's surface, your undeniable fact is trying to tell me that erosion on land could fill the oceans to where they were a swamp. So please, using simple math, tell us how 30 percent of the surface area at an average elevation of 840 meters could fill up basins covering 70 percent of the surface area at an average depth of 3,700 meters.
In other words, your undeniable fact is as completely bogus as all the other crap you peddle here, all the while calling the other side full of it. You do nothing but make emotional claims that, upon the merest examination, are revealed to be pure fiction with utterly no basis in science, reason or logic.
This show a complete lack of education concerning "erosion." If you think moving water cannot erode basalt, you are simply uninformed or misinformed.
and even then a significant slope is necessary to generate the velocity
EXACTLY what velocity is needed to erode basalt in Absurdistan? Slowly moving water will erode a slowly uplifting basalt basalt ridge slowly over millions of years.
You have a wild imagination.
Yes, I do...but it doesn't include Man walking the Earth with large meat eating dinosaurs 4400 years ago.
Water gaps really cannot be compared to valleys as they are different types of terrain features. Valleys have distinct high ground on 3 sides and generally a steeper pitch with faster moving water. Water gaps only have distinct high ground on 2 sides.
Water gaps are formed by rivers that are already there on relatively flat ground....when the uplift occurs. The uplift occurs perpendicular (or nearly so) to the river, slow enough such that there never is a course-changing “path of least resistance”...the water erodes the uplift as it happens.
What we know is that the river was there, the uplift did occur and continues to do so, and water does erode. The ONLY problem with this is if one believes the Earth to be only a few thousands of years old, the uplift would be faster than the water could erode it, then the river would divert along the uplift and not eroded it into a water gap.
You also see ‘wind gaps’, where a creek started to erode through a harder formation during the uplift, but eventually the rate of erosion wasn’t able to keep up with the rate of uplift, so the drainage ended up flowing parallel to the ridge until it joined a stream still able to keep up with the rate of uplift. Wind Gap, just east of Lehigh Gap in Pennsylvania, is an example of such.
You’ve exposed yourself.
Water by itself will not erode anything but carbonates. - Other materials are not sufficiently soluble to be affected in any measurable way by water. - Water that carries hard sediment, on the other hand, acts like a sand blasting nozzle, enabling the erosion of hard insoluble material.
Water moving slowly (in flat channels) has little effect on anything, even ordinary concrete is unharmed by the flow. In fact, solar radiation attacks concrete far more effectively.
Your concern about dinos need not go back 4400 years. There is abundant discussion of the interaction of dinos and men in the written record in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Papabear, you have already shown how little understanding you have. Now you can look at how little understanding Electric noodleberry has.
You’re both without knowledge of the subject, and just parrot the propaganda that you don’t understand, ad infinitum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.