Re: Scientific analysis of the Bible

On Mar 10, 8:56 pm, "igotskillz com" <a7cd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why is there only 4000 years of silt on the floors of the oceans ?

In most places, there is much more than 4000 years of silt on the
floors of the oceans. Here is Hovind's claim followed by a reply:

"Young-earth "proof" #21: Given the rate of sediment transport into
the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much
thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount
of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of
accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental
drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The
present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per
year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons.
That yields 30 million years.)

21. This is the other half of Nevins' argument (see point #15). Dr.
Hovind has botched it further by asserting that only a few thousand
year's worth of sediment is on the ocean floor! In the case of the
Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest
sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is
currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is
zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which
certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try
around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea
floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same
age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how
the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea
floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-
Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness
correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by
radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is
widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand
years" no matter what we are looking at!)

What are the odds of such a triple "coincidence" occurring? It boggles
the mind! It's easy to see why scientists "bet" on an old-earth. And
what about those magnetic stripes on the Atlantic sea floor? If that
ocean floor is indeed spreading, then the thickness of those stripes
and their distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge preserve a
chronological record of magnetic field reversals. When those distances
and widths are divided by the sea floor spreading rate, do we get a
match with the magnetic reversal chronology based on the radiometric
dating of continental rocks? Yes, we do!

Here is another interesting but little known fact. Mathematical
calculations done by Dan McKenzie in 1967 indicated that an ocean
floor, spreading at a few inches per year from a rift which adds new
material, would cool and contract. It would sink deeper into the
mantle as it contracted. "The process is so undeviating that there is
a striking relationship between the age of the sea floor and the depth
of water covering it." (Miller, 1983, p.122)

John Sclater and his students at Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
La Jolla, California, put McKenzie's theory to the test in 1971. They
gathered up every scrap of data on the age and depth of the Pacific
sea floor. McKenzie's theory was confirmed! The increasing depths of
the older portions of the Pacific floor were a result of thermal
contraction. Plate tectonics even explains the basic facts about the
depth of the Pacific!

That's bad news for those creationists who believe that the earth's
plates did some dancing after Noah's flood. In the few thousand years
that creationists have to play around with, there is not enough time
for a growing ocean plate to cool down. That means the plate would not
sink as a result of greater density due to cooling and contraction,
meaning that the Western Pacific would not be any deeper than the
Eastern Pacific. Isn't that amazing! Instant-drift creationists have
another problem. (Actually they have bushels of problems, but we don't
have yards of space.) Like Silly Putty (remember that?) the earth's
mantle will flow like a liquid if enough time is allowed, but it will
act like a solid if you try to rush things. A stick of old-fashioned
Silly Putty will, if left to own sweet time, melt into a puddle -- and
even into the sofa! However, if you try to bend that stick quickly it
will snap in two as though it were a piece of glass! For similar
reasons, there is absolutely no way to greatly speed up the drift of
continents or the spreading of ocean floors. It would be like driving
through solid rock! Dr. Hovind's bizarre suggestion that plate
tectonics is an evolutionist's means for escaping an embarrassing
dilemma doesn't merit any comment, since there is no dilemma. Strange,
that the theory of continental drift was fiercely opposed by most
"evolutionary" geologists at first! Stranger still, how some
discoveries in the late sixties brought them all around! It looks like
a case of follow-the-evidence rather than a conspiracy! We might note,
in passing, that plate tectonics became an observed fact in 1985! The
Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) technique, in combination
with laser ranging techniques, have successfully measured the movement
of the earth's plates relative to one another (Strahler, 1987, p.212).
Since 1979, such measurements have continually been taken by NASA's
Crustal Dynamics Project, which has removed any doubt that the
continents are indeed "drifting." (Note: the continents don't "drift"
by any efforts of their own, they just hitch a ride on the earth's
mantle material as it moves away from oceanic ridges.)"

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

- Bob T.



On Mar 10 2008 9:16 PM, Bob T. wrote:

On Mar 10, 12:59 pm, "igotskillz com" <a7cd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
4000 years of snow on the south pole

Not according to these guys, who dated some of the ice to 50,000 years
old:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4KBVWX....







or we could just read the Wikipedia article about Antarctica, which
reveals that the continent as we know it is about 25 million years
old.

"More than 170 million years ago, Antarctica was part of the
supercontinent Gondwana. Over time Gondwana broke apart and Antarctica
as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago.

[edit] Paleozoic era (540-250 Mya)

Survey route.During the Cambrian period, Gondwana had a mild climate.
West Antarctica was partially in the northern hemisphere, and during
this period large amounts of sandstones, limestones and shales were
deposited. East Antarctica was at the equator, where sea-floor
invertebrates and trilobites flourished in the tropical seas. By the
start of the Devonian period (416 Mya) Gondwana was in more southern
latitudes and the climate was cooler, though fossils of land plants
are known from this time. Sand and silts were laid down in what is now
the Ellsworth, Horlick and Pensacola Mountains. Glaciation began at
the end of the Devonian period (360 Mya) as Gondwana became centered
around the South Pole and the climate cooled, though flora remained.
During the Permian period the plant life became dominated by fern-like
plants such as Glossopteris, which grew in swamps. Over time these
swamps became deposits of coal in the Transantarctic Mountains.
Towards the end of the Permian period continued warming led to a dry,
hot climate over much of Gondwana.[1]

[edit] Mesozoic era (250-65 Mya)

Bransfield Strait.As a result of continued warming, the polar ice caps
melted and much of Gondwana became a desert. In East Antarctica the
seed fern became established, and large amounts of sandstone and shale
were laid down at this time. The Antarctic Peninsula began to form
during the Jurassic period (206-146 Mya), and islands gradually rose
out of the ocean. Ginkgo trees and cycads were plentiful during this
period, as were reptiles such as Lystrosaurus. In West Antarctica
conifer forests dominated through the entire Cretaceous period (146-65
Mya), though Southern beech began to take over at the end of this
period. Ammonites were common in the seas around Antarctica, and
dinosaurs were also present, though only two Antarctic dinosaur
species (Cryolophosaurus and Antarctopelta) have been described to
date. It was during this period that Gondwana began to break up.

- Bob T.

On Mar 10 2008 2:44 PM, Bob T. wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:09 am, "igotskillz com" <a7cd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Of all the people who commented, did any of you actually watch the
video ?
I kinda think most of you said it's wrong without even listening to
what
was stated

It's a two-hour video, skillz.  If you want people to comment directly
on something, it is much better to link to something written, not a
video or audio track.

If you have a question about one or several particular claims that
Hovind makes, please just type them up and I will reply.  I have no
interest in watching a two-hour video on any topic, let alone somebody
who isn't smart enough to pay his taxes and stay out of jail telling
us that his favorite mythology is right and science is wrong.

- Bob T.

If you want to make some cash, deal with someone you know, ME !!!

www.MySavingSpot.com

- Show quoted text -

If you want to make some cash, deal with someone you know, ME !!!

www.MySavingSpot.com

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast