evolution

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD (Part 3)

Not enough mud on the sea floor.
-Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit them in the ocean*. (source: Gordeyev, V.V. et al., ‘The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams’, Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 [1980] 150). This material also accumulates as loose sediments on the hard basaltic rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean is, including the continent shelves, less than 400 meters*. (source: Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 [10 December 1988] 14,933–14,940). The main way known to reduce the mud from the ocean floor is by plate subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently recycles 1 billion tons per year*. (source: Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 [10 Dec. 1988] 14,933–14,940). The other 24 billion tons of sediment simply accumulates. At this rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet, according to the evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been occurring as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above simply imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. A simple explanation for the creationist view (earth being 6,000-6,500 years old) of the oceans sediment being built up for “12 million years” would be the erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood. The immense volumes of water running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short amount of time about 5,100 years ago.

nono kharma, never saw it, but I heard it's alongside them

Well, alongside means nothing, and that evidence for a young world part three is joke. Talk about rewriting science to fulfill your beliefs.

So do creationists believe that dinosaurs and men walked the earth at the same time? If so then they must believe in catastrophic mass extinctions because the earth could never have at one point in history supported the sheer amount and diversity of the remains of life that have been, and continues to be, discovered.

Do creationists believe in plate tech tonics? The forming of mountain ranges through plate tech tonics and volcanic activity? Or do they figure that god just made the mountains? Because if that is so, why are the continents still moving and mountain ranges still developing and eroding?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Well, alongside means nothing, and that evidence for a young world part three is joke. Talk about rewriting science to fulfill your beliefs.

Why is it a joke? Because it goes against what you believe? Rewriting science???? The earth puts in sediment due to erosion, and THAT is rewriting science?

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD (Part 4)

Not enough sodium in the sea.
-Every year, rivers* (source: Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 [1979] 215) and other sources* (source: Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship [1991] in press. Address, ref. 12) dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this solution manages to get back out of the sea each year*. (source: Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 [1979] 767) The remainder accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated it present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input-output rates*. (source: Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship [1991] in press. Address, ref. 12) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the oceans, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations, which were as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios, still give a maximum age of only 62 million years*. (source: Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship [1991] in press. Address, ref. 12) Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean*. (source: Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship [1991] in press. Address, ref. 12)

no, because you're screwing science without supporting anything in return

whoa there's too much citing in there to make me want to read all that....
science is perfectly fine without evolution though:-)

That's great ska, creationis baking up their theories by sitiong other creationists. Notice how a paleontology also borrows from the findings of other scientific disciplines such as botany, geology, physics, hydrology and many other sciences? All those findings must be wrong though. Diamonds aren't actually made of carbon and fossil fuels don't come from ancient decaying matter, god made them. Sounds reasonable. (that's sarcasm). Explain to me also how fossils are made and then explain thier existence, that would be very interesting from a creationist point of view.

Now if you could please answer my question about whether creationists believe in plate tech tonics.

Ska57> Could you find any support of your young Earth NOT written by a creationist? And someone with a degree in science??

There's nothing wrong with the sodium level in sea-water, silly. Look here
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

TO Pwned yoU!
(Its been too long TO, tooo long....)

Ska57 I checked out your sources and they are heavily biased and, dare I say, a scientific joke. D.R. Humphreys also believes that the universe may only be thousands of years old.

How can he explain the basic theories of how many years it takes light from a star to reach earth (which is often in the millions of years if not billions)? Well apparently he's still working on that one.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Now if you could please answer my question about whether creationists believe in plate tech tonics.

I honestly don't know what the other creationists think about plate subduction, tectonics, whatever, i'll have to get back to you on that.

EVIDENCE OF A YOUNG WORLD (Part 5)
Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years.
-Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay*. (source: Gentry, R.V., ‘Radioactive halos’, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 [1973] 347–362) ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale*. (source: Gentry, R.V. et al., ‘Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification’, Science 194 [15 Oct. 1976] 315–318) ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates*. (source: Gentry, R. V., ‘Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective’, Science 184 [5 Apr. 1974] 62–66)

OK quit quoting BS sources!
Their crap and have all been refuted either here or elsewhere...

Ok what has this chat turned into?

WHY is it so hard for people to understand what a "theory" is? The difference between a law and a theory is MUCH more distinct than just a law having more proof than a theory. The way a teacher once explained it to me was, a law is an unbreakable rule that to the best of our knowledge exists everywhere without exception. A theory is a set if principles that attempts to explain a law or laws. Just because something is a theory does not mean it has not been proven. Something that has not been proven is called a hypothesis, and I've never heard of any evolution hypothesis.

Yeah a law is something that's so solid it's basically considered to be just an observation of nature... not even a question about it. My teacher said every theory is a potential law though..

Ahh, Omega, dear, it's been a while since last you've shot down someone!!!

Originally posted by Darth Revan
WHY is it so hard for people to understand what a "theory" is? The difference between a law and a theory is MUCH more distinct than just a law having more proof than a theory. The way a teacher once explained it to me was, a law is an unbreakable rule that to the best of our knowledge exists everywhere without exception. A theory is a set if principles that attempts to explain a law or laws. Just because something is a theory does not mean it has not been proven. Something that has not been proven is called a hypothesis, and I've never heard of any evolution hypothesis.

✅

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Yeah a law is something that's so solid it's basically considered to be just an observation of nature... not even a question about it. My teacher said every theory is a potential law though..

Really? I've always heard that a theory, no matter how sure of it being true we are, can never become a law...

Well I'm not certain.. but when we were studying the scientific method that's what he said. A scientist makes a hypothesis and if it's supported by repeated testing than he/she publishes it in a scientific journal so other scientists can read up on the experiment and replicate it themselves.. if it becomes widely enough accepted by scientists it becomes a scientific theory.. than once all the kinks are worked out and the theory is no longer questionable it becomes a scientific law. Unless if it is proven wrong, of course. Though some of them are impossible to prove wrong or right. I could be wrong though.

I missed this thread. Go evolution!

wee evolution!