[stereologist]

Quote

If geologic time be true, Christ be lying.

No wonder geology frightens you so bad.

If your 2-6 feet per year rate were true, then why are there coastal roads on both sides of the US that have not fallen into the oceans. Why are there houses over a hundred years old still along the oceans?

There are many places in the world where there is more land today than there was during the Ice Age. For example, the island of Newfoundland is getting larger each year because of isostatic rebound.

[maikeru]

tedrick79 said:

The point is we all know the data - continental drift occurs at about 2cm a year says the tectonic theory. But beaches erode at about a yard a year. Sources? Got em.

You have sources, and you need to read them thoroughly and understand them, like this one...

Quote

Coastal Erosion
Excerpt:
Many coastal areas are facing chronic long-term shoreline erosion problems. This is especially a problem along the low-lying barrier island systems of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Average erosion rates are 6 feet per year along the Gulf and 2 to 3 feet per year along the Atlantic. Some coastal areas may be accreting in the short term, but the general trend is in the direction of shoreline retreat.
Beatley, Brower, and Schwab (2002).

The erosion figures have been increased by the influence of people, development, and habitat destruction or disappearance.

On the Mississippi delta from your link:

Quote

Deltas are normally slowly increasing in size due to sediment deposited by the river. The slow increase is due to a slight imbalance between sedimentation by the river, and sinking of the delta due to consolidation of deeper sediments. The balance has been upset by the construction of levees and dams along the Mississippi River leading to rapid erosion of the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana. It is the most rapidly eroding coast in the USA. Since 1900, about 4900 km2 of wetlands in coastal Louisiana have been lost at rates as high as 100 km2/year. The rate was 90 km2/year for the 1978-90 time period.

In short, it says construction of levees and dams has altered the balance of sedimentation and land building in the delta. Result: highly increased rates of erosion, so that the delta is shrinking.

Quote

The dredging of many canals to provide access to oil and gas wells. The canals help salt water reach further inland, resulting in death of trees and vegetation that stabilizes wetlands. Wind blowing along the canals produces waves that erode the banks. And, storm surges produced by storms travel along canals causing erosion further inland.

Destruction of wetlands and marshes = increased erosion.

On dams,

Quote

Dams store sediments keeping them from nourishing and replenishing beaches. There are over 75,000 dams higher than six feet in height in the USA, and 1,971 in Texas. With little sand flowing to coastal areas, beaches are disappearing.

That helps to explain our disappearing beaches.

Quote

Destruction of coastal vegetation, including mangroves, leads to faster erosion rates.

Quote

Explain that. Oceans freeze solid? Sand volcano in central Florida?
Perhaps I am lying - and my source - and Doc Brown. All to point out a discrepancy of over what 20000% over known values. You have to slow coastal erosion by that much to get tectonic ages to work on Florida alone. Even if the ice shelf extended that low for a billion years that still leaves 10000% to work with.

Lets just focus on erosion - not how animals go there or here or anywhere. People got places they shouldn't have known how to get to long before they should have known how to. Then proceeded to forget how they arrived?

Your own link points to much higher rates of erosion being connected with human activities like beachfront development, dams, levees, destruction of marshlands, mangroves, forests, etc. But on the other hand we're following exactly what's recommended in Genesis 1:28:

Quote

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And I think you'll agree we're doing a damn fine job.

[Eclogite]

tedrick79 said:

A common tactic would be to insult the presenters intellect which I see you have done with the 'out of your depth' comment.

It was certainly not my intention to insult, but to educate. This is a field in which I have some knowledge and professional training. I consider it a duty and a pleasure to attempt to share my understanding of such topics with others. My addition of the parenthetic pun intended was meant to convey a lighthearted chiding of your misinterpretations. I am sorry this did not come across.

tedrick79 said:

Plates collide ? They giggle at best.

I am afraid they do collide. Slowly, but inexorably. The evidence for this is very clear. Take collisions involving at least one oceanic plate where the collisions zone is marked by a trench. Earthquakes adjacent to these trenches mark out planes (Wadati-Benioff zones) descending at an angle into the mantle. Negative gravity anomalies were found across the trenches by Vening Meinesz . Bullard determined that heat flow in these trenches was lower than the average for the ocean floor . Hess and Dietz independently realised these features were explained by subduction of ocean floor at the trench. I shall be happy to provide you with specific references for these concepts if you wish.

Quote

They do not move fast enough to compensate for the amount of erosion.

I have tried to explain this once. CraigD has tried also. I'll try again. The coastal erosion that so concerns you is taking place well within the margins of the continental plates. It is merely rearranging material on that plate. That is unimportant in the context of plate movement. I am not quite sure what it is you don't get about this, but will be happy to try to explain it if you will define your difficulty.

Over time the continental masses have increased in size. This is a product of a complex process involving partial melting of a basic mantle - which tends to melt the lower temperature components, followed by fractional crystallisation, which tends to extract the higher temperature components - that lead to generation of acidic, i.e. granitic magma, the source of your silica sand that so troubles you. Just like CraigD pointed out.
In addition to this we see oceanic material 'welded' onto the continent in many areas. (Google Ophiolites in Oman, Cyprus, Bay of Islands, Girvan, etc). All the 'problems' you imagine have been long solved. I'd like to work through your concerns and convince you of this. Are you ready to talk?

[wolvenstine]

HI this is my 2nd post so if i have missed some thing, please forgive,
i am a creationist so i,m reading this with a different view point!

I've noticed that there have been some basic assumptions made regarding salinity of the oceans and and how and what animals were in and out side the ark

Regarding salinity who's saying the oceans started out salty? as its shown today, the oceans are increasing in salinity. even from an evolutionary stand point the world would have started with fresh water at some point!

Animals on the ark!....

it is possible to house the required genetic diversity of animal species to recolonize the world in the ark, there aren't that many animal groups to start with there is an incredible range with in each group, but you don't require that many to start again, Evolution started with ONE so the text books say Creation just had a head start

Not every animal needed to be in the ark aquatic creatures could have survived if the oceans started out fresh as well as plants ( and as a side note fresh water species fish mainly can handle reasonably high levels of salt before it becomes toxic, in aquaponics we treat disease's with salt solutions of between 4 to 10 PPM, correct me if i'm wrong with those figures i don't have the exact numbers at hand, frogs on the other hand would have to have been in the ark as they are fragile even in a healthy state )

Also dinosaurs would have been on the ark maybe not in there fully grown form but there never the less, as the term dinosaur did not exist till 1842 they would have been known by other names.
The bible didn't list each kind of animal by name that went on to the ark only that there were a male and female of every Kind

Just to clarify i don't go along with every creationist theory ether i like the KISS principal
i believe that some people become to elaborate to try and explain everything and end up looking like fools in the process

It falls to the burden of proof and observation to prove a theory:eek:

[Moontanman]

[quote][quote name='wolvenstine']HI this is my 2nd post so if i have missed some thing, please forgive,
i am a creationist so i,m reading this with a different view point! [/quote]

No problem, a different point of view can be a good thing... but it is obvious from your post you have either not read this entire thread or ignored all the evidence that you are mistaken, i will attempt to show you your mistakes but so far your ideas are very minor things that negate the hydro-plate theory in general and YEC specifically.

[quote]I've noticed that there have been some basic assumptions made regarding salinity of the oceans and and how and what animals were in and out side the ark[/quote]

No problem i'll take that on....

[quote]Regarding salinity who's saying the oceans started out salty? as its shown today, the oceans are increasing in salinity. even from an evolutionary stand point the world would have started with fresh water at some point![/quote]

Geological evidence is who says the oceans were salty 6000 years ago, the oceans became salty much like today more than 3.5 billion years ago, by the time complex life evolved (around 500,000,000 years ago) the oceans had been the same or very similar in salt content for billions of years, salt is recycled by volcanoes and plate tectonics.

[quote]Animals on the ark!....

it is possible to house the required genetic diversity of animal species to recolonize the world in the ark, there aren't that many animal groups to start with there is an incredible range with in each group, but you don't require that many to start again, Evolution started with ONE so the text books say Creation just had a head start[/quote]


No it is not, as we have shown the idea of an ark containing all earthly animals is impossible much less spreading animals like kangaroos to Australia and amphibians to the western hemisphere... Evolution started with microbes 4,000,000,000 years ago, not 6,000 years ago.


[quote]Not every animal needed to be in the ark aquatic creatures could have survived if the oceans started out fresh as well as plants ( and as a side note fresh water species fish mainly can handle reasonably high levels of salt before it becomes toxic, in aquaponics we treat disease's with salt solutions of between 4 to 10 PPM, correct me if i'm wrong with those figures i don't have the exact numbers at hand, frogs on the other hand would have to have been in the ark as they are fragile even in a healthy state )[/quote]

First as I've point out in earlier paragraphs the oceans were just as salty then as they are now, it would take a few millions years at least for the oceans to get as salty as they are now, no freshwater oceans 6000 years ago... Also aquaponics is not good evidence of salt tolerant fishes, most of the fish grown that way are naturally salt tolerant, makes them easier to keep.

Most freshwater fishes will die in any long term exposure to salt, catfish are especially intolerant of salt in most species but marine invertebrates are the real problem, freshwater is deadly to most and amphibians are simply not going to disperse across oceans no matter how many were in the ark

[quote]Also dinosaurs would have been on the ark maybe not in there fully grown form but there never the less, as the term dinosaur did not exist till 1842 they would have been known by other names.
The bible didn't list each kind of animal by name that went on to the ark only that there were a male and female of every Kind [/quote]

The only dinosaurs available for passage on the ark were birds which is another case of why the ark is a failure as reality, no way even a small number of the birds could have fit on the ark. Not even if you had just a few birds you expected to diversify, far too many "kinds" to fit.

[quote]Just to clarify i don't go along with every creationist theory ether i like the KISS principal
i believe that some people become to elaborate to try and explain everything and end up looking like fools in the process[/quote]

Yes YECs do look rather foolish.

[quote]It falls to the burden of proof and observation to prove a theory:eek:[/quote]

Yes and hydro-plate theory and Noah's ark all fail miserably when put to the evidence. I have just pointed out some really quite minor problems that totally fail your theory, if you read this entire thread you'll find some quite a bit more fundamental reasons why it fails totally.... Now it remains to be seen if you are a one hit wonder or if you intend to back up your hydro-plate ideas, wear a helmit...

[Pyrotex]

wolvenstine said:

HI this is my 2nd post so if i have missed some thing, please forgive, i am a creationist so i,m reading this with a different view point!

I've noticed that there have been some basic assumptions made regarding salinity of the oceans and and how and what animals were in and out side the ark...

Wait a second, doc!

You have "noticed" assumptions... regarding ... animals ... in the ark?
WHERE did you notice these assumptions being made?
What post in this thread talked about the animals in or out of the ark?

This thread has consistently been about hydroplate theory and tectonic plate theory. There has been NO mention of the ark that I can find here. If you want to talk about the ark, please be kind enough -- and honest enough -- to start another thread on your chosen subject.

Thank you.

[Moontanman]

There are so many of these YEC threads I am loosing track of the discussions, no matter how many times it's debunked it pops back up some where else, it's like playing whack-a-mole!

[wolvenstine]

Quote

Wait a second, doc!

You have "noticed" assumptions... regarding ... animals ... in the ark?
WHERE did you notice these assumptions being made?
What post in this thread talked about the animals in or out of the ark?

This thread has consistently been about hydroplate theory and tectonic plate theory. There has been NO mention of the ark that I can find here. If you want to talk about the ark, please be kind enough -- and honest enough -- to start another thread on your chosen subject.

Pyrotex my above comment was regarding the quote below from Moontaman on page 24

Quote

I would like to point out the fact that Noah and his ark it's self was a miracle, how did Noah put 59,811 species of vertebrates, 950,000 species of insects on the ark? Not to mention how did 280,000 species of plants survive 300 days being submerged in salt water?

Regarding Salinity of the Oceans, thus far Moontaman i haven't been able to find any Geological evidence that points ether way, just that its been stable for million's of years,

Quoted from website
"scientists reached the conclusion that sea water must have had roughly the same chemistry over hundreds of millions of years"

if i'm reading the article correctly they came to this conclusion due to the fact that every thing is in balance and nothing is change out of the ordinary, what is going in is coming out!

Information taken from

www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Chemical-Processes

you are right i wasn't able to read all the posts as some of them were starting to sound silly and i jumped over them however i will persist and read the thread in full, i have not read the book about Hydroplate Theory ( not sure if i will seems like it is at odds with more then just evolution)

If you have better research that you could Link or direct me to i would love to read it!

Cheers Guys

[Moontanman]

wolvenstine said:

Pyrotex my above comment was regarding the quote below from Moontaman on page 24



Regarding Salinity of the Oceans, thus far Moontaman i haven't been able to find any Geological evidence that points ether way, just that its been stable for million's of years,

Quoted from website
"scientists reached the conclusion that sea water must have had roughly the same chemistry over hundreds of millions of years"

if i'm reading the article correctly they came to this conclusion due to the fact that every thing is in balance and nothing is change out of the ordinary, what is going in is coming out!

Information taken from

www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Chemical-Processes

you are right i wasn't able to read all the posts as some of them were starting to sound silly and i jumped over them however i will persist and read the thread in full, i have not read the book about Hydroplate Theory ( not sure if i will seems like it is at odds with more then just evolution)

If you have better research that you could Link or direct me to i would love to read it!

Cheers Guys

Wolvinstine what are you saying? Are you trying to assert Noah's Ark was real and the whole thing as told in the bible is true? If so it fails on every possible level. Hydro-plate theory also fails on every level, it has been shown not to be possible in this thread and in others. The salinity of the oceans is just a very small objection that shows how easily both theories fail totally and oh so easily. It really wouldn't matter if the oceans were salty or not both theories Fail...

There is reason to suspect that if anything the ancient oceans were as much as 2X as salty as todays ocean to begin with and that salinity held up the development of complex life.


ScienceDirect - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology : Temperature and salinity history of the Precambrian ocean: implications for the course of microbial evolution

Quote

The temperature and salinity histories of the oceans are major environmental variables relevant to the course of microbial evolution in the Precambrian, the “age of microbes”. Oxygen isotope data for early diagenetic cherts indicate surface temperatures on the order of 55–85 °C throughout the Archean, so early thermophilic microbes (as deduced from the rRNA tree) could have been global and not just huddled around hydrothermal vents as often assumed. Initial salinity of the oceans was 1.5–2× the modern value and remained high throughout the Archean in the absence of long-lived continental cratons required to sequester giant halite beds and brine derived from evaporating seawater. Marine life was limited to microbes (including cyanobacteria) that could tolerate the hot, saline early ocean. Because O2 solubility decreases strongly with increasing temperature and salinity, the Archean ocean was anoxic and dominated by anaerobic microbes even if atmospheric O2 were somehow as high as 70% of the modern level.

[Southtown]

http://news.discover...ing-120118.html

New Mexico is expanding. Hydroplate would call that "rebound."

The "where did the water go?" question is answered by Hydroplate as "the land rose above it."

...by contraction of the previously unfragmented continental layer.

Rebound...