Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[HitchSlap]

He should be more interested in the One who had ... stripes ... across His back.

Stryper was a terrible band.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stryper was a terrible band.

No ... you made a reference to Bill Murray ... as in the movie Stripes ... correct?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

No problem, that'll teach you to start too many new threads.

Trust me i fully regret it. One of these threads has 180 replies [about half mine] and was made not long before this one. I am outnumbered 20 to 1 [this is what i am use to and enjoy] and very busy. This is just my second time being on a christian forum where their is some friendlies in the area lol. The other a catholic forum not well visited.

Yes, as I said, mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.

Evolution has been directly observed.

Evolution is an applied science (i.e it has real-world applications in medicine etc.)

I would say these statements are the result of indoctrination and shows the need for such threads. It makes me want to get even deeper under water and start another one lol.

We have established that evolution and common descent area facts.
Do those words apply to people who refuse to entertain the notion that the Earth is flat?

Great you have done what no others have done, established evolution as a fact. You are giving me a goldmine of quotes to use for future threads on the level of indoctrination and unfounded confidence in evolution. Once more this is a future thread, you just know how to egg me on to do more threads. But I mustn't to many. I am hoping this other forum dies down than I could do one or two more here.


Yes, I think all views should be heard and tested. let the truth win out.

I know what an argumentum ad populum is. I never claimed that the TOE is true because it's most people "believe it".

Apologies, seemed it.

I couldn't care less about those two blokes opinion.

clearly you have no problem with the results of what they are saying either.

Yeah sure.

As I said before..

People accept evolution because of the mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.

Evolution has been directly observed.

Evolution is an applied science (i.e it has real-world applications in medicine etc.)

It's taught because it's correct.

Once more perfect goldmine of quotes, thanks. You would be willing to support and back up those claims on an appropriate thread as well correct? so i can repost them correct? when i am new on a forum i look for such quotes and than like to use them after i have made a thread on the topic. Is it ok to use you? i am sure i will anyways but might as well just ask first.

You would be wrong then.

So it should.

But when something has been demonstrated to be factual and accurate, yet you still don't accept it, it's fair to tell you that you're mistaken and to ask...

exactly why you are so sceptical?

Agreed fully.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More like a misunderstanding of special relativity displayed before our eyes...

It's called relativity because it applies to relative motion - which means there's no preferred reference frame and no absolute time; each observer (e.g. twin) is in motion relative to the other, and each is correct in their own frame of reference. They can even validly disagree on the order of events that are not causally connected. One twin ages less than the other if he has changed inertial frames (i.e. accelerated/decelerated) when the other has not.

Your description is just mistaken (I'm fairly sure I've explained this before).

Lets prove you don't believe that, shall we?

For starters, you assume this frame right now is a preferred frame... since you are refusing to consider any other....

Lets use Einsteins argument of a stationary twin and a twin in motion. Apparently it was good enough for Einstein and good enough for every believer in relativity, for the last 113 years. I see no objection this being the case.

Lets assume we start with a sample of 100 in the stationary frame. Every year we loose 2 units due to decay. 10 years go by and we accelerate the sample to fractions of c. The sample now decays at a rate of 1 unit every year.

10 years later someone tests the sample for the first time and finds 70 units remaining (2x10=20; 1x10=10). Based upon their belief that 1 unit is lost uniformly every year, they come to a conclusion that 30 of their years has passed. But in reality only 20 years have passed (10 in the stationary frame and 10 in the now frame). So they see 30 years worth of decay according to their current decay rate, but only 20 years have actually passed. Yes, their is 30 of our years worth of decay, but it happened in 20 years worth of time. Since there are as you just said you believed, no privileged reference frames, then the 10 years in the stationary frame is an accurate totality of time passed. Or would you care to now argue against your belief?

So since the tester above does not account for the time spent in the stationary frame when the decay rate was twice as fast, he sees 10 more years in units of time as having passed, when only 20 units in time have in reality passed. But did the tester account for the faster decay rate in the past, he would realize that only 20 units of time had actually passed. Instead of claiming a 30 year age for the sample, he would claim a 20 year age for the sample, understanding that for 10 of his years the decay rate was simply double what it was now.

But you see, you don't really believe there are no privileged reference frames. Instead you are about to argue against this and argue for our frame being a privileged reference frame. And likely won't even know you are doing so.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This really isnt even a response. Its just you saying that without looking at any actual numbers, you will have to disregard what I've said. And yes, of course there are more rivers than the Colorado, the Colorado however is connected to the Colorado river delta which deposits concentrated amounts of sediment from many rivers.

The more rivers you factor into the equation, the more land mass you also have to factor into the equation. And if the Colorado has enough sediment to erode for 400 million years, unless you have hundreds of thousands of Colorado rivers, your position is pointless.

And of course we all know that there are not hundreds of thousands of Colorado rivers.

At best you might find 5 or 6 rivers of comparable size, if even that in the western US.

Even if we hypothetically assumed that there were 10 Colorado rivers in the western US, you would still have 40 million years worth of sediment to erode. And this still further assumes that all land comes in contact with rivers. Much land in the western US is above the water table and doesnt even come in contact with rivers, and erosion rates decrease as rivers reach equilibrium with the water table.

And even further, the Grand Canyon was never claimed to be more than 10 million years old to begin with.

Where are the actual values that you are using for your justification?

They are not in the OP.

I doubled up your quote. Give me some time and ill see what i can come up with for stats I will look up online for those sources see what i can provide. My op does contain this


Erosion is measured by sediments from all rivers rivers erode their basins from 35 inches to .o4 inches per thousand years. The average height reduction for all continents is estimated at 2.4 inches per thousand years.


-J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”


-S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


The average rate from a dozen studies of sediments delivered through rivers to the basins is from 8,000 million to 58,000 metric tones per year [low estimates the dont count catastrophes that speed up rates] at this rate within 10 million years the average height of the continents would erode away.

-Roth Origins linking science and scripture 1998 265 table 15.2

I found this chart from Roth's book

Table 1: Erosion rates of some major rivers of the world
Average lowering of the land surface within the drainage basin in mm (inches) per 1000 years

Wei-Ho 1350 (53)
Hwang-Ho 900 (35)
Ganges 560 (22)
Alpine Rhine and Rhone 340 (13)
San Juan (U.S.A.) 340 (13)
Irrawaddy 280 (11)
Tigris 260 (10)
Isere 240 (9.4)
Tiber 190 (7.5)
Indus 180 (7.1)
Yangtse 170 (6.7)
Po 120 (4.7)
Garonne and Colorado 100 (3.9)
Amazon 71 (2.8)
Adige 65 (2.6)
Savannah 33 (1.3)
Potomac 15 (0.59)
Nile 13 (0.51)
Seine 7 (0.28)
Connecticut 1 (0.04)




I found some stats online from one of the papers.




Journal of Geophysical Research
Rates of regional denudation in the United States

These data indicate a rate of denudation for the United States as a whole of 2.4 in./1000 years, or about twice that of older estimates. The most rapid rate, 6.5 in./1000 years, is recorded from the Colorado drainage. The slowest rate, 1.5 in./1000 years, is found in the Columbia basin. Other drainage areas and their rates are the Pacific slopes, California, 3.6 in/1000 years; the western Gulf of Mexico, 2.1 in./1000 years; the Mississippi River watershed, 2.0 in/1000 years; the South Atlantic and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1.6 in/1000 years, and the North Atlantic, 1.9 in/1000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ069i016p03395





Here is another chart

https://books.google.com/books?id=6XHnT85y7toC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=J.N+Holleman+1968+the+sediment+yield+of+major+rivers+of+the+world,water+resources+research+4:737+747+E+W&source=bl&ots=vrWvB8afD7&sig=fcdJaZt9lc7QBiL7kNw8TMVFyGk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjru-_JiLvcAhWK_YMKHZ5sAuMQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W&f=false




"Before the proliferation of dam construction in the latter half of this century, rivers probably discharged about 20 billion tons of sediment annually to the ocean.....) calculated an annual global discharge of 13.5 bt by extrapolating average sediment yields for documented rivers over large regions with similar topography. However, since the data used by Milliman and Meade came mostly from large rivers, the yields were necessarily lower than if they also had included smaller rivers. In addition, constrained by the lack of data, Milliman and Meade conservatively estimated the yields for mountainous coastal rivers to be 1000 t/km2/yr. The new data presented in this paper suggest that the yields for rivers draining Oceania are probably r30001 km2/yr, meaning that the high-standing islands of Oceania (approximate area of 3 x lo6 km2) may be closer to 9 bt than the 3 bt estimated by Milliman and Meade! Similar percentage increases might hold for southeastern Alaska, western South America, the southern Alps-Caucasus orogen and NW Africa (e.g., Walling 1985).
Geomorphic/Tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the Ocean: The Importance of Small Mountainous Rivers
John D. Milliman, and James P. M. Syvitski




Entire paper online here

Geomorphic/Tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the Ocean: The Importance of Small Mountainous Rivers1 John D. Milliman and James P. M. Syvitski2 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a452/1ece68fbb0a9de79469ee445f228d8440431.pdf

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lets prove you don't believe that, shall we?

For starters, you assume this frame right now is a preferred frame... since you are refusing to consider any other....

Lets use Einsteins argument of a stationary twin and a twin in motion. Apparently it was good enough for Einstein and good enough for every believer in relativity, for the last 113 years. I see no objection this being the case.

Lets assume we start with a sample of 100 in the stationary frame. Every year we loose 2 units due to decay. 10 years go by and we accelerate the sample to fractions of c. The sample now decays at a rate of 1 unit every year.

10 years later someone tests the sample for the first time and finds 70 units remaining (2x10=20; 1x10=10). Based upon their belief that 1 unit is lost uniformly every year, they come to a conclusion that 30 of their years has passed. But in reality only 20 years have passed (10 in the stationary frame and 10 in the now frame). So they see 30 years worth of decay according to their current decay rate, but only 20 years have actually passed. Yes, their is 30 of our years worth of decay, but it happened in 20 years worth of time. Since there are as you just said you believed, no privileged reference frames, then the 10 years in the stationary frame is an accurate totality of time passed. Or would you care to now argue against your belief?

So since the tester above does not account for the time spent in the stationary frame when the decay rate was twice as fast, he sees 10 more years in units of time as having passed, when only 20 units in time have in reality passed. But did the tester account for the faster decay rate in the past, he would realize that only 20 units of time had actually passed. Instead of claiming a 30 year age for the sample, he would claim a 20 year age for the sample, understanding that for 10 of his years the decay rate was simply double what it was now.

But you see, you don't really believe there are no privileged reference frames. Instead you are about to argue against this and argue for our frame being a privileged reference frame. And likely won't even know you are doing so.

Throwing in the radioactive decay stuff is a distraction.

The twin who travels close to the speed of light and returns ages less. That extends to both radioctive decay and the addition of wrinkles on the skin and the accumulation of years of memories.

The twin who travels, if he has a bit of uranium ore on his person during his travels, could test it and find it aged exactly the same as himself. The twin who stays at home on earth can test a bit of uranium ore he kept around and find it aged, as well, exactly as himself.

You seem to be seeking to find a way for earth's radioactive ores to have a much longer time span than the earth's inhabitants. You're not going to find that. The ores on earth and the residents on earth have all been experiencing the same motion together all this time.

So the earth has experienced billions of years of history. It's recorded in the ores. It's recorded in the development of life.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . Great you have done what no others have done, established evolution as a fact. . . .

Well, actually, that has been accomplished for a long time now. Of course, some people are still in denial.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Evolutionist Defend Radiometric Dating

Is radiometric dating not the go to for evolutionist? does it not prove an old earth? why no response to what I have posted?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Evolutionist Defend Radiometric Dating

Is radiometric dating not the go to for evolutionist? does it not prove an old earth? why no response to what I have posted?

Nothing that we know of is moving fast enough to cause enough time dilation to matter, anyway, you're pursuing a fruitless line of reasoning.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Rates of regional denudation in the United States

These data indicate a rate of denudation for the United States as a whole of 2.4 in./1000 years, or about twice that of older estimates. The most rapid rate, 6.5 in./1000 years, is recorded from the Colorado drainage. The slowest rate, 1.5 in./1000 years, is found in the Columbia basin. Other drainage areas and their rates are the Pacific slopes, California, 3.6 in/1000 years; the western Gulf of Mexico, 2.1 in./1000 years; the Mississippi River watershed, 2.0 in/1000 years; the South Atlantic and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1.6 in/1000 years, and the North Atlantic, 1.9 in/1000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ069i016p03395

Don't worry. They are about to argue that due to tectonic plate action the mountains are rising, offsetting this reduction. While at the same time not realizing that the plains of Kansas are also eroding and not being uplifted by tectonic activity. Cognitive dissonance creates a tunnel vision, where only the facts that fit one's belief can be allowed in.

But don't worry, the plains were simply 24,000 to 192,000 feet higher back then, didn't you know?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nothing that we know of is moving fast enough to cause enough time dilation to matter, anyway, you're pursuing a fruitless line of reasoning.

GN-z11 with a redshift of z = 11.1, corresponding to 400 million years after the Big Bang with an estimated distance of 32 billion light years in 13 billion years of time.

But since we must assume we are in motion at this same velocity, as relativity demands.....

But...... if instead one were to apply time dilation corrections, we wouldn't need to make up Fairie Dust to explain an object being at a distance of 32 billion light years in only 13 billion years. Instead we would realize that since rulers shrink on acceleration, rulers were larger in the past. That we are measuring what appears a larger distance in a time double the speed of light because our rulers are now shorter and our time is now slower..... All discrepancies are removed..... magic Fairie Dust theories no longer needed....

Wrong post btw, he's not arguing what I am arguing..... although not being blinded by Fairie Dust he might be able to comprehend....

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

GN-z11 with a redshift of z = 11.1, corresponding to 400 million years after the Big Bang with an estimated distance of 32 billion light years in 13 billion years of time.

But since we must assume we are in motion at this same velocity, as relativity demands.....

But...... if instead one were to apply time dilation corrections, we wouldn't need to make up Fairie Dust to explain an object being at a distance of 32 billion light years in only 13 billion years. Instead we would realize that since rulers shrink on acceleration, rulers were larger in the past. That we are measuring what appears a larger distance in a time double the speed of light because our rulers are now shorter and our time is now slower..... All discrepancies are removed..... magic Fairie Dust theories no longer needed....

Wrong post btw, he's not arguing what I am arguing..... although not being blinded by Fairie Dust he might be able to comprehend....

The motion of distant galaxies is expressed to us laymen in contradictory terms. They never say they ascribe recession speeds faster than light but they do say that due to the expansion of the universe they are apparantly receding faster than light. Truth to tell, there are two ways of thinking about the receding galaxies. One, strictly in accordance with Einstein's theory of relativity, requires we NOT think of space itself expanding and carrying galaxies along with it. The other, in terms of thinking of space itself expanding, suggest the galaxies are traveling away from us faster than light. Cosmologists switch between these view in describing the distant galaxies and that can be confusing. Most laymen don't even notice this..

Here's a link that explains the alternate views, with diagrams.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

You're not going to be able to get a YEC view of the earth from these alternate ways of describing the universe of distant galaxies. And its not a matter of one way being "right" and the other way being "wrong". Rather, it is a matter of taking alternate ways of describing the same set of truths. Distant galaxies in any case have no relevance to the unfolding of the earth's history for the past 4+ billion years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The motion of distant galaxies is expressed to us laymen in contradictory terms. They never say they ascribe recession speeds faster than light but they do say that due to the expansion of the universe they are apparantly receding faster than light. Truth to tell, there are two ways of thinking about the receding galaxies. One, strictly in accordance with Einstein's theory of relativity, requires we NOT think of space itself expanding and carrying galaxies along with it. The other, in terms of thinking of space itself expanding, suggest the galaxies are traveling away from us faster than light. Cosmologists switch between these view in describing the distant galaxies and that can be confusing. Most laymen don't even notice this..

Here's a link that explains the alternate views, with diagrams.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

You're not going to be able to get a YEC view of the earth from these alternate ways of describing the universe of distant galaxies. And its not a matter of one way being "right" and the other way being "wrong". Rather, it is a matter of taking alternate ways of describing the same set of truths. Distant galaxies in any case have no relevance to the unfolding of the earth's history for the past 4+ billion years.

What set of truths????

The first requires a never before seen in any laboratory of the expansion of an ether which supposedly was disproved. Einstein accepted ether, just realized the idea of motion could not be applied to it. Needless to say both require the use of Hubble's Law, which directly correlates recessional velocity with redshift. So if it is Fairie Dust expansion of space causing redshift, and not recessional velocity, then there is no confirmed experimental or observational way to determine the distance of any redshifted galaxy, since it would not be caused by recessional velocity, but by the expansion of space.

If on the other hand one uses Hubble's law (which all do) then it requires the direct correlation of recessional velocity with redshift to calculate distances. Leading to a faster than light distance.

Of course they switch back and forth. If they stick to one or the other the irrationality becomes obvious and isn't easily hidden by confusing the layman and suckering them out of their taxes to fund Fairie Dust with the bait and switch routine.

So readers following along do not get confused, let's not forget to mention that it was not Hubble that formulated the Hubble Law. That Hubble himself did not believe in cosmological redshift or recession. That he postulated a as then undiscovered natural cause instead as it gave a more realistic description of the curvature of spacetime.

But you are totally incorrect. Being you don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity I understand your mistakes. With time dilation and length contraction corrections applied, the distance would be shorter and the time would be shorter as well. Remember, you are measuring a longer distance (shorter ruler) in a longer amount of time (slower clock). With the corrections applied the distance would be shorter (corrected larger ruler) in a shorter amount of time (corrected faster clock). Remember, the time is faster when corrected because the ruler is longer. It now takes less time to travel a shorter distance because the ruler is longer, so the distance is shorter. Just as it now seems to take more time to cover a longer distance because your ruler is shorter while your time is longer. Now you see 4 light years from point A to B. If you accelerate you see a larger distance (shorter ruler) not a shorter distance. This is where the deception comes into play. They want you to believe that as you approach the speed of light the distance between A and B decreases (because they refuse to shrink the ruler according to experimental data). Yet if this was true, then light which is traveling at c would have space contracting the distances, not spacetime expanding the distances. At the very minimum the two would offset and no redshift would be observable. Either space contracts as one approaches c, or it is expanding. To imply both is pseudoscience. Or your ruler is simply shorter and your clock tick longer according to experimental data.

But since the accurate distance can not be determined as there is no laboratory verification of anything equating any expansion with any redshift or distance, and since recessional velocity is ruled out due to exceeding the speed of c, that leaves one only with the option of correcting clocks and rulers for time dilation to arrive at the correct answers. And to realize what cosmological redshift actually is.

And btw, for the upteenth million time, I am not arguing for a YEC viewpoint. I don't care if you want the earth to be 50 billion years old. I am arguing your dating of man is what is flawed (along with the total age of the earth), but that is irrelevant, since there have been 6 creations and 5 destruction's. I am not interested in your argument's against YEC in the slightest, because the earth isn't young, just man....

 

[HitchSlap]

What set of truths????

The first requires a never before seen in any laboratory of the expansion of an ether which supposedly was disproved. Einstein accepted ether, just realized the idea of motion could not be applied to it. Needless to say both require the use of Hubble's Law, which directly correlates recessional velocity with redshift. So if it is Fairie Dust expansion of space causing redshift, and not recessional velocity, then there is no confirmed experimental or observational way to determine the distance of any redshifted galaxy, since it would not be caused by recessional velocity, but by the expansion of space.

If on the other hand one uses Hubble's law (which all do) then it requires the direct correlation of recessional velocity with redshift to calculate distances. Leading to a faster than light distance.

Of course they switch back and forth. If they stick to one or the other the irrationality becomes obvious and isn't easily hidden by confusing the layman and suckering them out of their taxes to fund Fairie Dust with the bait and switch routine.

So readers following along do not get confused, let's not forget to mention that it was not Hubble that formulated the Hubble Law. That Hubble himself did not believe in cosmological redshift or recession. That he postulated a as then undiscovered natural cause instead as it gave a more realistic description of the curvature of spacetime.

But you are totally incorrect. Being you don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity I understand your mistakes. With time dilation and length contraction corrections applied, the distance would be shorter and the time would be shorter as well. Remember, you are measuring a longer distance (shorter ruler) in a longer amount of time (slower clock). With the corrections applied the distance would be shorter (corrected larger ruler) in a shorter amount of time (corrected faster clock). Remember, the time is faster when corrected because the ruler is longer. It now takes less time to travel a shorter distance because the ruler is longer, so the distance is shorter. Just as it now seems to take more time to cover a longer distance because your ruler is shorter while your time is longer. Now you see 4 light years from point A to B. If you accelerate you see a larger distance (shorter ruler) not a shorter distance. This is where the deception comes into play. They want you to believe that as you approach the speed of light the distance between A and B decreases. Yet if this was true, then light which is traveling at c would have space contracting the distances, not spacetime expanding the distances. At the very minimum the two would offset and no redshift would be observable. Either space contracts as one approaches c, or it is expanding. To imply both is pseudoscience. Or your ruler is simply shorter and your clock tick longer according to experimental data.

But since the accurate distance can not be determined as there is no laboratory verification of anything equating expansion with any redshift or distance, and since recessional velocity is ruled out due to exceeding the speed of c, that leaves one only with the option of correcting clocks and rulers for time dilation to arrive at the correct answers. And to realize what cosmological redshift actually is.

And btw, for the upteenth million time, I am not arguing for a YEC viewpoint. I don't care if you want the earth to be 50 billion years old. I am arguing your dating of man is what is flawed (along with the total age of the earth), but that is irrelevant, since there have been 6 creations and 5 destruction's. I am not interested in your argument's against YEC in the slightest, because the earth isn't young, just man....

My gawd man, where do you get this $#!+ from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My gawd man, where do you get this $#!+ from?

From a place you have never been - logic.

Which is why you can only make ad hominem attacks, you have no actual science to back up your beliefs.... Which is the first sign of cognitive dissonance or mass hysteria, inability to do nothing but make irrelevant remarks....... I appreciate your support by unknowingly conceding to defeat....

As someone said: "When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."

 

[HitchSlap]

From a place you have never been - logic.

Which is why you can only make ad hominem attacks, you have no actual science to back up your beliefs.... Which is the first sign of cognitive dissonance or mass hysteria, inability to do nothing but make irrelevant remarks....... I appreciate your support by unknowingly conceding to defeat....

As someone said: "When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."

Sure... but you haven't said one rational thing. Ever.

What gives?

 

[HitchSlap]

No ... you made a reference to Bill Murray ... as in the movie Stripes ... correct?

Nope, that was you. Great movie, tho'.

 

[Job 33:6]

Journal of Geophysical Research
Rates of regional denudation in the United States

These data indicate a rate of denudation for the United States as a whole of 2.4 in./1000 years, or about twice that of older estimates.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ069i016p03395

Ok the rate of denudation for the US as a whole is 2.4 in / 1000 years.

If you have 15,000 feet of paleozoic bedrock, how many thousands of years would it take for your rock to erode away?

Can you do this math?

What if I told you that proterozoic and archean rock has been exposed at the surface and makes up a large portion of north america as well?

If you take 50,000 feet of rock, and you eroded through that rock at 2.4 inches every 1,000 years...

50,000ft * 12 inches per foot is 600,000 inches.

600,000/2.4 inches = 250,000

250,000 inches * 1000 years = 250,000,000 years.

So assuming no uplift ever occurs, we might expect north america to not exist after 250 million years?

Well, uplift has been occurring over the last 250 million years.

Really, this argument you're making sounds like something a preschooler would come up with, because nobody in their right mind would ever be able to simplify something like the water cycle into such a simple argument.

Its just silly.

 

[Job 33:6]

Journal of Geophysical Research
Rates of regional denudation in the United States

The most rapid rate, 6.5 in./1000 years, is recorded from the Colorado drainage.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ069i016p03395

Ok, 15,000 feet * 12 inches per foot - 180,000 inches. Divided by 6.5 and multiplied by 1000 years = 27.7 million years.

Actually, here, lets look at a map together.

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/se...4~5523586:Geologic-Cross-Section-of-the-Grand

From the kaibab limestone down to the vishnu schist, there is about 6-7,000 feet of rock by which the river has cut through.

So, 6500 feet * 12 inches is 78,000 inches. 78,000/6.5 = 12,000. Multiplied by 1000 years is 12 million years.

How old has anyone ever claimed the Colorado river to be? Ill give you a hint, its less than 12 million years.

Now, the colorado river doesnt erode away land that it doesnt come in contact with. But just taking into account the rate of erosion that you provided, there is nothing abnormal about the research.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Before the proliferation of dam construction in the latter half of this century, rivers probably discharged about 20 billion tons of sediment annually to the ocean.....) calculated an annual global discharge of 13.5 bt by extrapolating average sediment yields for documented rivers over large regions with similar topography. However, since the data used by Milliman and Meade came mostly from large rivers, the yields were necessarily lower than if they also had included smaller rivers. In addition, constrained by the lack of data, Milliman and Meade conservatively estimated the yields for mountainous coastal rivers to be 1000 t/km2/yr. The new data presented in this paper suggest that the yields for rivers draining Oceania are probably r30001 km2/yr, meaning that the high-standing islands of Oceania (approximate area of 3 x lo6 km2) may be closer to 9 bt than the 3 bt estimated by Milliman and Meade! Similar percentage increases might hold for southeastern Alaska, western South America, the southern Alps-Caucasus orogen and NW Africa (e.g., Walling 1985).
Geomorphic/Tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the Ocean: The Importance of Small Mountainous Rivers
John D. Milliman, and James P. M. Syvitski




Entire paper online here

Geomorphic/Tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the Ocean: The Importance of Small Mountainous Rivers1 John D. Milliman and James P. M. Syvitski2 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a452/1ece68fbb0a9de79469ee445f228d8440431.pdf

The article above has doesn't suggest that entire continents are washing away, as you seem to think it does.

We really have already covered this subject.

"Before the proliferation of dam construction in the latter half of this century, rivers probably discharged about 20 billion tons of sediment annually to the ocean"

Ok, if granite weights 167 poudns per cubic foot, and we have 12 million (width) * 7 million (height) * 15,000 square feet, then we get 1.2*10^18 square feet of rock.

At 167 pounds per cubic foot, thats 2.1*10^20 pounds.

divided by 2000 pounds per ton and we have 1.05*10^17 tons.

If 20 billion are eroded each year, thats still 5 million years.

But wait...i only factored in the united states. And the research paper is regarding rivers of the entire planet.

Dare I actually do the calculation with the 57 million square miles of the surface area of the entire planet?