Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Only one problem with both of your arguments.

Ruins a mere 1,000 years old have to be excavated from beneath the surface.

So actual layering rates falsify your belief in how long it takes to build up and his in how long it takes to erode....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

What gives?

See post #115 for response.....

 

[HitchSlap]

Only one problem with both of your arguments.

Ruins a mere 1,000 years old have to be excavated from beneath the surface.

So actual layering rates falsify your belief in how long it takes to build up and his in how long it takes to erode....

Lol... you make these claims as if you understand the subject matter.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ill go ahead and do the math.

57 million square miles * 27878400 square feet per square mile = 1.6*10^15 square feet.

1.6*10^15 square feet * 15,000 feet = 2.25*10^29 cubic feet.

2.25*10^29 cubic feet *167 ibs/cubic foot = 3.76*10^31 ibs

3.76*10^31 ibs / 2000 ibs / ton = 1.88*10^28 tons.

1.88*10^28 tons divided by 20 billion tons per year = 9.4*10^17 years.

Which, in case anyone was wondering, is 940,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Which basically means that rivers of the planet will never erode away continents because continents are vastly larger than the rivers that erode them.

Continents are orders upon orders of magnitude larger than the amount of sediment that is washed off of them each year. Theyre continents. They're huge. Even the largest of rivers pales in comparison to the landmass of any continent.

The idea that rivers would just erode continents away really is just a dumb suggestion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol... you make these claims as if you understand the subject matter.

See post #115 for response.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ill go ahead and do the math.

57 million square miles * 27878400 square feet per square mile = 1.6*10^15 square feet.

1.6*10^15 square feet * 15,000 feet = 2.25*10^29 cubic feet.

2.25*10^29 cubic feet *167 ibs/cubic foot = 3.76*10^31 ibs

3.76*10^31 ibs / 2000 ibs / ton = 1.88*10^28 tons.

1.88*10^28 tons divided by 20 billion tons per year = 9.4*10^17 years.

Which, in case anyone was wondering, is 940,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Which basically means that rivers of the planet will never erode away continents because continents are vastly larger than the rivers that erode them.

Problem two since you ignored problem 1. What is now surface was once under the ocean so would it not be composed of eroded layers????? And what is now ocean was once land, what was eroded.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, that was you.

So Bill Murray didn't star in Groundhog Day? is that what you're saying?

 

[HitchSlap]

So Bill Murray didn't star in Groundhog Day? is that what you're saying?

Case study of creo logic 101.

Carry on, Magnum.

 

[Astrophile]

I go back to my cliffs of dover example. The rocks it is made out of are mesozoic, over 250 million years old. But they came from the sea where historically they did not undergo erosion, rather they spent many millions of years forming via deposition.

You have to take into account the fact that deposition occurs, and many mountains are made of rocks that formed by deposition.

So yes the cliffs of dover are 250 million years old, but that doesnt mean that they were eroding that entire 250 million years. Most of those years were spent growing via accumulated deposition.

No. The white cliffs of Dover are Upper Cretaceous, between about 100 and 70 million years old. The Mesozoic era (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods) began about 250 million years ago, and ended 65 million years ago.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. The white cliffs of Dover are Upper Cretaceous, between about 100 and 70 million years old. The Mesozoic era (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods) began about 250 million years ago, and ended 65 million years ago.

My apologies for assigning it to the early mesozoic as opposed to the late mesozoic. thanks for the correction.

This would actually reinforce the point that there is really no good reason to believe that this should all have been eroded away, given that these cliffs had risen above sea level perhaps 100 million years later than my original statement suggested. Not to say that the cliffs were exposed as they initially formed however.

Do you know what mountain building event is responsible for uplift of the cliffs of dover @Astrophile ?

 

[Astrophile]

My apologies for assigning it to the early mesozoic as opposed to the late mesozoic. thanks for the correction.

This would actually reinforce the point that there is really no good reason to believe that this should all have been eroded away, given that these cliffs had risen above sea level perhaps 100 million years later than my original statement suggested. Not to say that the cliffs were exposed as they initially formed however.

Do you know what mountain building event is responsible for uplift of the cliffs of dover @Astrophile ?

Probably the Alpine event. The white cliffs of Dover are part of the Weald Anticline, which was uplifted about 20 million years ago, during the early Miocene epoch.

 

[Job 33:6]

Probably the Alpine event. The white cliffs of Dover are part of the Weald Anticline, which was uplifted about 20 million years ago, during the early Miocene epoch.

I have to ask, out of curiosity. Are you from the UK? Or are you just by chance familiar with geologic history or various countries?


Good to know...

The Weald–Artois anticline is a large anticline, a geological structure running between the regions of the Weald in southern England and Artois in northeastern France. The fold formed during the Alpine orogeny, from the late Oligocene to middle Miocene as an uplifted form of the Weald basin through inversion of the basin. The folding resulted in uplift of about 180 metres (590 ft),[1] though concurrent erosionmay have substantially reduced the actual height of the resulting chalk ridges.

As is the case with all anticlines, older rock strata are found in the core of the structure. These are in this case Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous strata. The eastern part of the ridge, the Weald of Kent, Sussex and Surrey has been greatly eroded, with the presumed chalk surface removed to expose older, Lower Cretaceous rocks (Wealden Group) and a small area of Upper Jurassic Purbeck Beds.[2] On the French side of the English Channel more Upper Jurassic rocks crop out in a small area around Boulogne-sur-Mer and Desvres.[3] At the flanks of the anticline outcrops of the (younger) Upper Cretaceous Chalk occur. The chalk survives as a rim of inward-facing escarpments, forming the North Downs and South Downs. The Chalk forms characteristic white cliffs on both sides of the English Channel, an example being the white cliffs of Dover.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

I bet, you've made a heck of a rod for your own back!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Zebra Man?

 

[AV1611VET]

Zebra Man?

Now that you said that, every time I see a zebra, I'm going to think of Jesus Christ, who loves us and gave Himself for us ... and Who created them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Er, no.

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.

Relative to the frame you have taken to be stationary; in the sample's frame it doesn't change.

10 years later someone tests the sample for the first time and finds 70 units remaining (2x10=20; 1x10=10).

10 years later in which frame - the 'stationary' frame or the sample frame?

Based upon their belief that 1 unit is lost uniformly every year, they come to a conclusion that 30 of their years has passed.

In which frame?

Unless you specify the frame in which the measurements are performed, you can't make a coherent calculation.

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?

It's not a question of what I believe, it's what special relativity says. If you accept special relativity, there are no preferred frames.

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.

Well, no.

You've just demonstrated you can't adequately frame (pun intended) a thought experiment in relativity. It's hard to tell because you don't specify the frame from which the measurements are performed, but it looks like it's you who are privileging the 'stationary' frame.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now that you said that, every time I see a zebra, I'm going to think of Jesus Christ, who loves us and gave Himself for us ... and Who created them.

Think of it as an exaggerated donkey...
View media item 60241[Morningbray Farm]

 

[AV1611VET]

Think of it as an exaggerated donkey...

I don't play connect-the-dots with evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

I'm sure you would, I would use term "education".

You seem to be grasping for a justification to reject evolution, I notice that you didn't take issue with any of the three statements though.

Are you denying that....

There is mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.

A general overview:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

An article by one of our own forum members (A christian if you feel it's relevant):
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations


Evolution has been directly observed.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation


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

Fighting HIV Evolution with an Evolved Therapeutic Agent: Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial of a Potent Broadly Neutralizing Human Antibody

Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases: Exemplars of the Fluidity of Protein Structure and Function through Phylogenetic History

Augmented Infection Control via Practical Pathogen Phylogenetics Based on Whole-Genome Sequencing

A Genomic Perspective on Pathogen Adaptation to Antibiotics and Vaccines

Amino Acid Gymnastics and the Evolution of Influenza Virus Resistance to Oseltamivir

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

LOL, read the links above. I can't take credit for any of the work contained in them unfortunately.

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.

Quotes seem to be your forte, unfortunately for you they are pretty meaningless in a debate on scientific evidence.

I suggest that you finish what you've started here before starting any new threads - you'll get no peace!

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

Yep, and when they're demonstrated to be completely and utterly wrong they should be discarded.

Apologies, seemed it.

Thank you.

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

People say many things, not all of them are correct though.

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.

I've demonstrated the validity of my statements above.

But sure, go for it.

Edit: If you are going to respond to this post please do me the courtesy of doing so in your own words rather than a bunch of quotes plagiarized from a creationist website.

 

[Jimmy D]

Zebra Man?

Since I've been making more use of the ignore button (the big three - Aman, AV and Dad) I get to see some quite strange things.... like Fruminous saying "Zebra Man" for no apparent reason.