Sociology Talk Sociology Talk    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment          Sociology Talk Forum Index -> Sociology Talk View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Jesus has Risen!!! Guest Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:37 am    Post subject: An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment "THE EVOLUTIONIST'S DILEMMA "If the world ocean is a billion years old, there should be an enormous quantity of ocean sediments. Yet, even the evolutionist is aware of the scarcity of sediments. What would be his rebuttal to the arguments presented so far? "In order to have an ocean over a billion years old, yet possessing a meager carpet of sediments, the evolutionist must have some process which constantly removes sediments from the sea floor. The first process which comes to mind is removing sediment by uplifting sea floor and returning ocean sediments back to the continents. This may account for a little ocean sediment loss, but the total amount of sediments on the continents is about equal to the amount on the ocean floor. Adding all the sediments on the present continents to those in the modern ocean would still be far short of the anticipated 100,000 feet of ocean sediments which should exist if the ocean is a billion years old. This process does not solve the evolutionist's dilemma. "The second process is very ingenious. If the major quantity of sediment is not being removed from the ocean by uplifting, then the evolutionist must suppose some process which plunges deep ocean sediments into the depths of the earth! The favorite method is called 'sea floor spreading,' and suggests that the ocean floor is like a conveyor belt. Ocean crust is assumed to form continuously at the mid ocean ridges, then it accumulates sediments as it slowly moves away from the ridge, and finally both crust and sediments are destroyed by re-melting when dragged below ocean trenches. The best estimates by evolutionary- uniformitarian geologists suggest that about 2.75 billion tons of sediment per year are being destroyed by sea floor spreading. This rate is only one tenth of the modern rate of addition of sediments to the ocean. Stated another way, ocean sediments are forming today at a rate ten times faster than they are being destroyed by sea spreading! Thus, sea floor spreading is not able to destroy sediments fast enough. "After careful analysis of the erosion of continents and associated sedimentation in the world ocean, we must ask two urgent questions. Where is all the sediment if, as the evolutionist assumes, the ocean is over 1 billion years old? Who has the better model for the ocean-- the evolutionist or the creationist? We feel confident that the true answers concerning the origin of the ocean are presented in Scripture. 'The sea is His and He made it' (Psalm 95:5)." [footnotes omitted] Evolution: The Ocean says NO! by Stewart E. Nevins M.S.* http://www.icr.org/article/56/ * The Author. Stuart E. Nevins has B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology and is Assistant Professor of Geology at Christian Heritage College -- .. "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12 Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Larry Hewitt Guest Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment "Jesus has Risen!!!" <sp4m33t3@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gFt%h.34262$G23.8213@newsreading01.news.tds.net... Quote: "THE EVOLUTIONIST'S DILEMMA "If the world ocean is a billion years old, there should be an enormous quantity of ocean sediments. Yet, even the evolutionist is aware of the scarcity of sediments. What would be his rebuttal to the arguments presented so far? "In order to have an ocean over a billion years old, yet possessing a meager carpet of sediments, the evolutionist must have some process which constantly removes sediments from the sea floor. The first process which comes to mind is removing sediment by uplifting sea floor and returning ocean sediments back to the continents. This may account for a little ocean sediment loss, but the total amount of sediments on the continents is about equal to the amount on the ocean floor. Adding all the sediments on the present continents to those in the modern ocean would still be far short of the anticipated 100,000 feet of ocean sediments which should exist if the ocean is a billion years old. This process does not solve the evolutionist's dilemma. "The second process is very ingenious. If the major quantity of sediment is not being removed from the ocean by uplifting, then the evolutionist must suppose some process which plunges deep ocean sediments into the depths of the earth! The favorite method is called 'sea floor spreading,' and suggests that the ocean floor is like a conveyor belt. Ocean crust is assumed to form continuously at the mid ocean ridges, then it accumulates sediments as it slowly moves away from the ridge, and finally both crust and sediments are destroyed by re-melting when dragged below ocean trenches. The best estimates by evolutionary- uniformitarian geologists suggest that about 2.75 billion tons of sediment per year are being destroyed by sea floor spreading. This rate is only one tenth of the modern rate of addition of sediments to the ocean. Stated another way, ocean sediments are forming today at a rate ten times faster than they are being destroyed by sea spreading! Thus, sea floor spreading is not able to destroy sediments fast enough. "After careful analysis of the erosion of continents and associated sedimentation in the world ocean, we must ask two urgent questions. Where is all the sediment if, as the evolutionist assumes, the ocean is over 1 billion years old? Who has the better model for the ocean-- the evolutionist or the creationist? We feel confident that the true answers concerning the origin of the ocean are presented in Scripture. 'The sea is His and He made it' (Psalm 95:5)." [footnotes omitted] Evolution: The Ocean says NO! by Stewart E. Nevins M.S.* http://www.icr.org/article/56/ * The Author. Stuart E. Nevins has B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology and is Assistant Professor of Geology at Christian Heritage College Did his degrees come with box of Cracker Jack?? Larry Quote: -- . "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12 Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor KlugeHans Guest Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:30 pm    Post subject: Re: An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment In article <gFt%h.34262$G23.8213@newsreading01.news.tds.net>, sp4m33t3@yahoo.com (Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote: Quote: "THE EVOLUTIONIST'S DILEMMA "If the world ocean is a billion years old, there should be an enormous quantity of ocean sediments. Yet, even the evolutionist is aware of the scarcity of sediments. What would be his rebuttal to the arguments presented so far? Why do you think oil deposits even in the North Sea are often kilometres below the surface? Is that "sediment " enough for you, Twat-Face You Creationist filth are full of shit Not a Christian amongst the whole filthy fascist lot of you Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor KlugeHans Guest Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:31 pm    Post subject: Re: An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment In article <f1lq1e$9g2$1@news04.infoave.net>, "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote: Quote: Did his degrees come with box of Cracker Jack?? Larry No they were found in the packet of condoms his mother forgot to use Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Bob LeChevalier Guest Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Re: An evolutionist's dilemma: ocean sediment sp4m33t3@yahoo.com (Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote: Quote: "THE EVOLUTIONIST'S DILEMMA "If the world ocean is a billion years old, there should be an enormous quantity of ocean sediments. There are. Many mountains are made entirely of them. Quote: Adding all the sediments on the present continents to those in the modern ocean would still be far short of the anticipated 100,000 feet of ocean sediments which should exist if the ocean is a billion years old. Silly argument. There could not be 100,000 feet of sediments, since there is no evidence that the oceans were ever 100,000 feet deep. Long before that much sediment accumulated, the water in ocean would have to move elsewhere. At which point the now exposed sediment would start to erode. None of this has the slightest relationship to evolution, or course. Learn some science. lojbab Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Sociology Talk Forum Index -> Sociology Talk All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum Sociology Talk----------------Sociology Talk-- FutureConstitutionBush PoliticsBritish  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Australian Debt Consolidation Experts medical insurance Wedding Websites Escort, massaggiatrici e accompagnatrici a Modena, Bologna, Parma, Brescia, Vicenza ... Kontakte Erwachsene Missouri Car Insurance Make Your Own Website Free and Cheap International Calls Long island Cleaning service black mold UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site floor machines Vacuum Parts 137 Attacks blocked Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group