Where does all the sediment go?

[Wootah]

Suggested evidence for a young earth

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/se ... -seafloor/

Does this argument qualify as a valid reason to believe in a young earth?

Please post counter links or counter evidence.

But is it possible that this is a valid fact that helps yec?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

There are quite a few articles on creationist websites supporting this idea, and of course many counters to this argument on secular websites or science websites, such as these two examples:

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... iment.html

https://infidels.org/library/modern/dav ... iment.html

But I'd argue that the cumulative evidence as a whole supporting a 4.6 billion year old earth overwhelm any one idea like this one, even if you discard counter arguments such as the examples above. Radiometric dating of meteorites and Earth samples, the fossil record, and the time scales of major geologic events are consistent in arriving at the age of the Earth that science accepts now, and the sediment argument by itself seems to be a pretty weak one as support for a young earth ... especially one as young as ~6000 years (and there is plenty more evidence to discard that kind of extremely young date).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by DrNoGods]

Of course. But this is more about claims that there is no evidence.

Im just interested in testing the claim by the yec site.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

It isn't an argument, because it isn't geologically accurate. Most of the sediment stays near the point of exit from land (think river deltas for example). Over time the weight of the accumulating material squeezes the material underneath into solid rock. Often times this rock is thrust up via plate tectonic activity and becomes dry land again. In my hometown of St Louis we are surrounded my hundreds of miles of limestone, all of it full of fish fossils. This was material that used to be a shallow sea. 75% of rocks on the surface of the Earth are sedimentary, and many were formed via deposition in water.

It's also important to remember that heavy points on sea floors will sink into the planet's crust. The Hawaiian islands have been doing this for millions of year. There are many sea mounts running NW, under the water, in line with the current islands. These used to be islands themselves but their weight (along with erosion wearing them down) have caused them to sink into the ocean bottom. Areas of sediment deposition also do this to the material underneath.

What really brothers me is that a PhD in geology would omit such information. If their god creature is so real, there should be no reason to omit facts when making an argument...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

It isn't an argument, because it isn't geologically accurate. Most of the sediment stays near the point of exit from land (think river deltas for example). Over time the weight of the accumulating material squeezes the material underneath into solid rock. Often times this rock is thrust up via plate tectonic activity and becomes dry land again. In my hometown of St Louis we are surrounded my hundreds of miles of limestone, all of it full of fish fossils. This was material that used to be a shallow sea. 75% of rocks on the surface of the Earth are sedimentary, and many were formed via deposition in water.

It's also important to remember that heavy points on sea floors will sink into the planet's crust. The Hawaiian islands have been doing this for millions of year. There are many sea mounts running NW, under the water, in line with the current islands. These used to be islands themselves but their weight (along with erosion wearing them down) have caused them to sink into the ocean bottom. Areas of sediment deposition also do this to the material underneath.

What really brothers me is that a PhD in geology would omit such information. If their god creature is so real, there should be no reason to omit facts when making an argument...

[H.sapiens]

Suggested evidence for a young earth

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/se ... -seafloor/

Does this argument qualify as a valid reason to believe in a young earth?

Please post counter links or counter evidence.

But is it possible that this is a valid fact that helps yec?

Either Snelling is an idiot, or he thinks you are.

Claim CD220:

At current rates of erosion, only thirty million years are needed to account for all the sediments in the ocean. If the earth were as ancient as is claimed, there should be more sediments.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 155-156.

Response:

The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.

The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways -- measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... ml#proof21

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 3 by Wootah]

If something presented as evidence isn't convincing, does it still count as evidence?

If so then sure, there is evidence of a young Earth, but you will open a new can of worms I can easily think up plenty of evidence for even the most absurd of claims.

If not then no, there is no evidence of a young Earth, see any number of rebuttals presented here and else where.

[wiploc]

Suggested evidence for a young earth

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/se ... -seafloor/

Does this argument qualify as a valid reason to believe in a young earth?

You didn't post an argument or a summary of what we'd find if we were to follow your link. So I'm just going to answer the question about where sediment goes.

There's been plenty of time for erosion to flatten the mountains, but, because of tectonic activity, new mountains keep happening. It's a continual process of creation and destruction.

As a result, we have a continual flow of sediment to the sea. Much of that sediment is carried back into the earth at subduction zones. You can think of oceanic tectonic plates as conveyor belts. New crust is created at one edge. Near that edge, on the new crust, there is very little sediment. As you travel towards the other end of the plate, the crust is older, and has had time to accumulate more sediment. At the other end of the plate is a subduction zone, where one plate dives under the other, carrying sediment with it.

Crustal material tends to be light. That is, it's up at the surface because it's light enough to float on heavier materials. I know there's a mix of different materials of different densities up here, but nonetheless, the tendency is toward the less-dense. (In this paragraph, I'm out of my depth, reporting things I think I've sort of figured out but am not sure of.) The result is that, as one plate dives under another, and thrusts down into the heat of the earth, light material can melt off and bob up toward the surface, causing volcanoes, making new mountains.

So, sediment from old mountains can be become part of new mountains.

Some of the sediment scrapes off the top of a crustal plate at a subduction zone. Much of California accumulated in this manner. John McPhee's Annals of the Former World reads well and has much information on this topic.

In any case, the answer to your question is that sediment tends to wash down into the ocean and then be subducted into the earth.

It is absolutely correct that, over billions of years, more sediment has been created than we find lying around now. That's because it rides the tectonic conveyor belt back down into the earth.

Please post counter links or counter evidence.

See the McPhee link above.

But is it possible that this is a valid fact that helps yec?

No. The age of the earth is established.

[Bust Nak]

Either Snelling is an idiot, or he thinks you are.

Moderator Warning

Please don't call anyone an idiot.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.