Hydroplate Theory

[Buffy]

Unless you change the laws of physics, such deformation in a "short" period of time is physically impossible.

Yeah, you call on me to explain how granite can deform under heat, pressure and gravity in a little under a year, but yet rock can vaporize explosively under "other" conditions?

Of course it can, IF you can explain where the energy comes from.

 

Realize of course that just the one meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs and most of the other life on the planet left so little direct evidence, that it was contested for a considerable period of time after the concept was proposed. The Chicxulub crater was caused by a 6 mile wide meteorite, and it's effect is limited to the crater area on the Yuckatan penninsula whose direct effect was to simply to provide a single transfer of the material in the immediate crater in well ordered layers of debris in the immediate area, of which the dispersion can be easily modeled and verified. It produced no folding or complex reordering of layers even in the immediate area.

 

If you use this to extrapolate, the size of the meteorite necessary to produce the energy that would come even close to all of the folding and deformation seen in the geologic record would require a moon size meteorite or thousands of smaller ones, either of which would be guaranteed to scrub all life off of the face of the earth.

 

It would be fine to be so dismissive on this point if it weren't for the fact that the data points to energy release so many orders of magnitude different that its even silly to contemplate any comparison.

 

You know, I've always liked that word "gargantuan", I so rarely have the opportunity to use it in a sentence, :confused:

Buffy

[tedrick79]

As I noted in a post a long, long time ago, I'm partial to two natural "thought experiments" of Hydroplate theory, regarding Noah and the ark:

 

1. The boiled or steamed Noah's ark theory, where the supercritical steam must have instantly cooked the holy man and his family (as well as all the diverse creatures). The resulting stew would have been similar to the sukiyaki, a tasty Japanese dish.

 

2. Or the exploding Noah's ark theory, where he jammed in 1.8+ million species and counting, and Lord only knows how Noah and his wife were able to put up with the odors and lack of space. From the incredible internal forces and pressures generated by cramming in so many creatures of all kin and kind and lack of similar pressure outside the ark, we can only surmise HMS Noah's Ark must have split an Adam's rib and sank beneath the waves with all hands on board.

 

Oh I love questions. Where the Ark is said to have sit would be right about where Turkey is now. It is far enough from any faults that hot water would have fountained out of. You must remember that IF this occurred there would be much wind pushing inwards towards these cracks as the air was pulled upward and out into the upper atmosphere. This the hydroplate theory attests caused extreme low pressure in a few spots. Siberia for one where big fuzzy elephants died where they stood and were buried in the soon to come sub orbital mud. This all sounds far out but it is what this theory attests.

 

Second of all or to answer your second question not all species must be crammed aboard. Things that swim can stay outside and fend for themselves between the getsers and the low pressure zones. Enough will live or they won't make it. They took a couple horses, a couple dogs, a couple giraffe, a couple allosaurs, not all were full grown surely but just a couple of each of the animal types. Now types is a hard word for some people - a type is a cat or a dog or a bird or a frog. Standard issue - 1 each - nothing special about it. A mutt. Now as people have demonstrated with dogs over the past 500+ years you can breed dogs to any shape, size, temperament, or whatever you want to do. This is forced selection or unnatural selection. Everything that has its own kind got loaded up and everything else perished.

 

Last I would like to drain off some of this venom I see so often in these debates. Proofs occur only in math and are based on precepts and axioms. Neither of which exist in this field - history. History is not science and science is not history - you mix the two or attempt to mix the two and you get belief - which some equate as religion. All people have belief, even if it is the unbelief in some history.

 

This is not going to come to an end at any point - as it is matter of history and none of us were present to observe it. Some people were there and wrote stories about it. Some call those stories fact, others call those stories myth. Whether they do one or the other for whatever reasons - their judgment is a belief - not science.

 

Science is repeatable, testable, document-able, observable, this evades both tectonics and hydroplate as neither are science. We both know there are faults in the earth. That means nothing more than just that thar' be cracks in the crust.

 

Tectonic theory discounts erosion. Hydroplate theory needs more presuppostions than Quaker has oats - most of which can be found in one of the old texts circulated most widely by humanity. If you this book of presuppositions, as we can call it, means nothing to the judger then the Hydroplate theory from which it stems means even less.

 

Tectonic theory is the other challenger to hydroplate theory. They stand at odds, one is correct and one is incorrect. We must guard at becoming venomous beasts in defending our theories.

 

I, at one time, held tectonic theory in high regard. In looking deeper is discounted something we do know is occurring today. Erosion. Now we know a lot about erosion and how fast it erodes stuff. The number one problem I have is with coastal erosion - no one talks about it much about beach sharing counties who are always fighting it. Pumping sand in, up, over to fill out those beaches with some sand. Now coastal erosion varies from coast to coast, county to county - but the answer I keep hearing is about a yard a year tore away from beaches and sucked off to the continental shelf. Never to return to the air. The only replacement mechanism is dredges pumping it up or volcanoes.

 

Now I say all that to say this. Whats the average amount of distance on the eastern seaboard of the US from shore to continental shelf? About 90,000 yards. How long have oceans been eroding? 90,000 years. Thats an assumption based on the shelf being the outer limit but it is supported by the wear rates at the corresponding shorelines. Like in North Carolina around the ever choppy outer banks the shelf extends more than your average 90k yards but the wear rates are double there as your lighthouses ever in danger of being moved yet again in some cases can attest to. Google it up. Assemble the pieces - this is not popular science. Few people unify this data.

 

Erosion does not computer with tectonic theory. We know erosion to be science, fact, law. Tectonic theory, just an idea, a working hypothosis based on Moho-guessing games and crabby old people who so much do not want that widely circulated text to be true at all.

[maikeru]

Oh I love questions. Where the Ark is said to have sit would be right about where Turkey is now. It is far enough from any faults that hot water would have fountained out of. You must remember that IF this occurred there would be much wind pushing inwards towards these cracks as the air was pulled upward and out into the upper atmosphere. This the hydroplate theory attests caused extreme low pressure in a few spots. Siberia for one where big fuzzy elephants died where they stood and were buried in the soon to come sub orbital mud. This all sounds far out but it is what this theory attests.

 

I don't have enough time to write a full reply, because I need to go to work in a few mins and see what my employees are up to. I'll finish later.

 

I also note you don't quote or give any citations to back up your assertions. This is a Hypography staple. Your assertions need proper citations, evidence, and reasoning.

 

First, Noah's Ark came to rest in the "Mountains of Ararat" in Genesis 8:4, which is taken to refer to a general place or region with mountains, not necessarily a specific mountain. The exact location is in doubt. Some people believe the region or place of Ararat refers to the mountains of Iran in the northwest, such as Mt. Judi, and others believe it is Mt. Ararat, which once belonged to Armenia and which for your information is a freaking huge dormant volcano, and there are significant reserves of underground water as well as a freaking huge glacier sitting on top of it. Not close enough to any hot water...? Let's not kid ourselves. On the contrary, this baby is a primed boiling-hot water cannon, better than any Super Soaker I could invent.

 

Mount Ararat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

And the region of Mt. Ararat has been hit by earthquakes in the past and recent history.

 

However, it is known that Ararat was shaken by a large earthquake in July 1840, the effects of which were largest in the neighborhood of the Ahora Gorge (a northeast trending chasm that drops 1,825 metres (5,988 ft) from the top of the mountain). An unstable part of the northern slope collapsed and a chapel, a monastery, and a village were covered by rubble. According to some sources, Ararat erupted then as well, albeit under the ground water level.[3]

 

Eastern Turkey (and Armenia as well), contrary to what you say, *is* seismically active and major faults are located nearby and probably minor faults as well.

 

Turkey

 

A large 6.1 magnitude earthquake hit eastern Turkey just in March and killed 51 people or so:

 

Magnitude 6.1 - EASTERN TURKEY

 

Note the high seismic activity all over the region and by Mt. Ararat.

 

Anyone else want any Noah stew?

[stereologist]

Your post reads like all of the creationist lectures I have attended. But there are problems with what you wrote:

1. Turkey is full of faults. In fact it lies on some extremely dangerous faults.

2. The Siberian big fuzzies did not die where they stood. They drowned in mud or other means that led to the preservation of their bodies. They were not kicked by cold.

3. How do you account for the Baja legless lizard crossing the Atlantic from Turkey?

4. Which died sharks or trout? One can't live in fresh water and the other can't live in salt water.

 

Baja California legless lizard - Anniella geronimensis - ARKive

 

The flood is obviously a myth. The first person that I know of to openly suggest that the flood did not happen was DaVinci. His incites into geology when he knew so little of the earth made it clear that the flood did not occur.

 

Your claims that plate tectonics is not science is simply because you don't understand the meaning of science or what happens in the studies of plate tectonics. Your comment on faults illustrates a clear lack of understanding of plates, how they are located, how they move, etc.

 

Another mistake is to say that its either plate tectonics or another idea. Well hydroplate is not a theory. It has no evidence backing it up. There is a story and that's it. Unlike plate tectonics which is backed up by data every day, hydroplate is a story, and a poor one at that.

 

Again you talk about coastal erosion. That is a lie constructed by YECs to claim that certain things are happening and imply a short earth time. The erosion rates given by YECs are often the highest they can provide, and do not consider continental erosion, but changes in shoreline. They also claim that tectonic processes cannot do what is being observed in Asia today - the uplift of a huge mountain chain.

 

I suggest you consider an introductory course in geology. During that course you will be introduced to a number of simple concepts such as the immense age of the earth, geological processes, plate tectonics, and many other interesting items that have been known for 500 years in some cases or more and YECs are still unable to learn.

[Southtown]

Which died sharks or trout? One can't live in fresh water and the other can't live in salt water.

So you're claiming that the salinity would be completely equalized across the globe in about 12 months?

 

Baja California legless lizard - Anniella geronimensis - ARKive

wtf is this about?

 

"Description

Information on the Baja California legless lizard is currently being researched and written and will appear here shortly.

Authentication

This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible."

 

Well hydroplate is not a theory. It has no evidence backing it up. There is a story and that's it.

Asteroid ice may be 'living fossil' with clues to oceans' origins

Life must have targeted earth from the frozen peripheries (as opposed to being ejected.) Nevermind the evolutionary spectrum of 'quasi'-life on neighboring planets predicted by selection.

 

Unlike plate tectonics which is backed up by data every day,^{citation needed} hydroplate is a story, and a poor one at that.

 

Again you talk about coastal erosion. That is a lie constructed by YECs to claim that certain things are happening and imply a short earth time.^{citation needed} The erosion rates given by YECs are often the highest they can provide,^{citation needed} and do not consider continental erosion,^{citation needed} but changes in shoreline.^{citation needed} They also claim that tectonic processes cannot do what is being observed in Asia today ^{citation needed}- the uplift of a huge mountain chain.^{citation needed}

You're smarter than this, man. This is Hypography; if you can't back it up...

 

I suggest you consider an introductory course in geology. During that course you will be introduced to a number of simple concepts such as the immense age of the earth, geological processes, plate tectonics, and many other interesting items that have been known for 500 years in some cases or more and YECs are still unable to learn.

I would hope that the material covered would include sources also, considering how much the ****ing courses cost...

[Moontanman]

So you're claiming that the salinity would be completely equalized across the globe in about 12 months?

 

Absolutly, it would only take hours with the disruptions claimed by hydroplate stories.

 

wtf is this about?

 

There are many animals that simply could not disperse to their natural habitats from Mt. Arat or anyplace else, frogs come to mind immediately. frogs cannot cross oceans, they die almost immediately in saline water. And the water from the depths would have to be exactly the same salinity as sea water. Sea water is not simply salt water is is a complex solution that has a specific amount of many different salts in exact ratios and an exact salinity. Very much deviation and a great many sea creatures simply die, large shifts in temps will cause death as well. They entire hydroplate story fails due to the idea of fresh water animals having to survive sea water. If the sea water was significantly different most ocean invertebrates would have died. this one thing invalidates the entire story.

 

"Description

Information on the Baja California legless lizard is currently being researched and written and will appear here shortly.

Authentication

This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible."

 

I look forward to it, it is just one of millions of species that could not have survived a world wide deluge.

 

 

Asteroid ice may be 'living fossil' with clues to oceans' origins

Life must have targeted earth from the frozen peripheries (as opposed to being ejected.) Nevermind the evolutionary spectrum of 'quasi'-life on neighboring planets predicted by selection.

 

I suggest you read your own link, it has nothing to do with life being brought in from outside and nothing to do with supporting hydroplate stories either.

 

You're smarter than this, man. This is Hypography; if you can't back it up...

 

I suggest you do the same thing, you are the one making outrageous claims.

 

I would hope that the material covered would include sources also, considering how much the ****ing courses cost...

 

I am quite certain it would.

[stereologist]

So you think that a fluid such as water could keep saline and fresh water separate for 300 days during a global deluge in which all waters are connected. You think it's possible?

 

Let's try to be more explicit. If that the lizard has no legs and it can't live in cold climates how did it get from Turkey to Baja and ended up no where else in the world? Because the biblical account is rubbish. How hard is that to comprehend? Take pandas. They live on a very exclusive diet. None of it exists between Turkey and China. How big a box lunch did pandas pack to get from Turkey to China? It didn't fit in a railroad car. We could go on and on about the asinine issues that the ark story has to overcome. Think of the Koalas. They live on gum trees. None between there and Australia.

 

So you think that ice from space that came in here billions of years ago led to a recent flood? Yikes.

 

This is hypography. I did back it up.

[stereologist]

Very good moontanman. I overlooked the wonders of the amphibians.

[Moontanman]

Very good moontanman. I overlooked the wonders of the amphibians.

 

Yeah, amphibians and echinoderms all by themselves totally invalidate the hydroplate story. I could make a huge long list of other animals that do so but these two totally different creatures do so quite well all by themselves.

 

For hydroplate to have worked would require Divine intervention but if you postulate divine intervention you do not need the hydroplate story. God by definition could pull it off just by magic, I see no reason what so ever to try and validate the supernatural by trying to make up sciencey sounding stories. Postulating supernatural intervention invalidates all evidence to the contrary and has no place in science the same way science has no place in the supernatural.

[tedrick79]

Alright so if I use anything I got to back it up with a source. Well here is my source.

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

 

If you want other sources I can cite Dr. Brown's sources. They are in the book. Would you like for me to scan them in for you - I mean I can if I get the Doc's permission to do so.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Now please reason with me. We have had oceans for how many billions of years you claim? A couple billion at least. That is a couple billion feet at least even with lighter than recorded erosion. 2 billion feet is 378787 miles! Now that is larger than the circumference of well any damn thing in the solar system. So what must erosion rates be reduced to to make it work?

 

Thought you wouldn't ask.

 

Well lets take off Cape Canaveral - random as can be I guess.

 

Now using google earth it is 291 miles from the tip of Cape Canaveral shoreline to the tip of her same continental shelf point. I feel a screen shot coming on. Any way that is 291 miles eroded over 2 billion years. That is an erosion rate of .00076824 feet per year. Which is - as I sourced earlier much lower than the rate of 2-6 feet per year. Now that is the discrepancy. The difference between .0007 feet per year and 3.8 feet per year.

 

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?

[tedrick79]

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

As promised.

[Eclogite]

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. .

tedrick, you are out of your depth here. (pun intended.)

Everything you are talking about relates to sedimentation and erosion on continental shelves. We know, from stratigraphy, that sea levels have varied greatly in the past and that shorelines have advanced and retreated by great distances, on continental shelves.

 

That's the point you don't seem to get - on continental shelves. These shelves are part of the continents, which form some, or part of some, of the discrete plates. The shoreline moves backwards and forwards across this shelf in response to changing sea levels, tidal currents, sediment transport and the like. The shoreline position is not determined by the rate of plate motion - you are trying to relate two independent variables.

 

How come the rivers can keep on supplying sediment over millions and billions of years? It appears there is another fundamental of geology you are unfamiliar with - the rock cycle.

 

When plates collide continental masses are hauled up into mountain ranges, oceanic collisions, or oceanic-continental produce massive volumes of lava - look at the Andes. It's an ongoing process. The contradiction you think exists is not there. Full stop. Period. Nada. Nothing.

 

Let's move on.

[Moontanman]

Alright so if I use anything I got to back it up with a source. Well here is my source.

 

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

 

If you want other sources I can cite Dr. Brown's sources. They are in the book. Would you like for me to scan them in for you - I mean I can if I get the Doc's permission to do so.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Now please reason with me. We have had oceans for how many billions of years you claim? A couple billion at least. That is a couple billion feet at least even with lighter than recorded erosion. 2 billion feet is 378787 miles! Now that is larger than the circumference of well any damn thing in the solar system. So what must erosion rates be reduced to to make it work?

 

Thought you wouldn't ask.

 

Well lets take off Cape Canaveral - random as can be I guess.

 

Now using google earth it is 291 miles from the tip of Cape Canaveral shoreline to the tip of her same continental shelf point. I feel a screen shot coming on. Any way that is 291 miles eroded over 2 billion years. That is an erosion rate of .00076824 feet per year. Which is - as I sourced earlier much lower than the rate of 2-6 feet per year. Now that is the discrepancy. The difference between .0007 feet per year and 3.8 feet per year.

 

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?

 

Tedrick, you need to take some courses in real geology science, not creationism. I live on the coast, shoreline erosion is not a theory to me, I've lived with it for the last 38 years. I've seen a single storm add a half mile to the shore line. The shore line does not erode at a particular rate average or not. the shore comes and goes, the sand moves in giant slow waves as it moves up and down the coast. rivers add enormous amounts of material to the shore line as does the ocean.

 

You and your creationist sources are not simply wrong, they are so far off the mark they are not even a part of the reality of shore lines. Get some info on real geology, get your info from people who do not have an agenda to prove that has nothing to do with reality.

[tedrick79]

tedrick, you are out of your depth here. (pun intended.)

Everything you are talking about relates to sedimentation and erosion on continental shelves. We know, from stratigraphy, that sea levels have varied greatly in the past and that shorelines have advanced and retreated by great distances, on continental shelves.

 

That's the point you don't seem to get - on continental shelves. These shelves are part of the continents, which form some, or part of some, of the discrete plates. The shoreline moves backwards and forwards across this shelf in response to changing sea levels, tidal currents, sediment transport and the like. The shoreline position is not determined by the rate of plate motion - you are trying to relate two independent variables.

 

How come the rivers can keep on supplying sediment over millions and billions of years? It appears there is another fundamental of geology you are unfamiliar with - the rock cycle.

 

When plates collide continental masses are hauled up into mountain ranges, oceanic collisions, or oceanic-continental produce massive volumes of lava - look at the Andes. It's an ongoing process. The contradiction you think exists is not there. Full stop. Period. Nada. Nothing.

 

Let's move on.

 

Plates collide ? They giggle at best. They do not move fast enough to compensate for the amount of erosion. I think this is a red herring and you do not want to deal with the glaring discrepancy. A common tactic would be to insult the presenters intellect which I see you have done with the 'out of your depth' comment.

 

Rock cycle? That replaces lost sand? You dodge the question and the glaring problem of coastal erosion and geologic time tables. There simply is not enough erosion on anything to make this planet billions of years old.

 

Tectonic plates move 1-10cm per year

 

Speed of the Continental Plates

 

Erosion has been occurring at 2-6 feet per year

(referenced earlier)

 

Your inability to refer to address these glaring differences means that I have struck a chord for which there is no easy answer. Either the planet is not billions years old OR erosion does not exist/does happen when it is not measured/it only happens at the rate which is convenient for those who subscribe to geologic time tables.

 

 

I unsubscribed from these forums in the past because they are only a source of the sheer lack of reasoning power of all those who believe evolutionary time. I am not going to fight a whole onslaught of you all by my self. Christ spoke of Creation in Matthew. If geologic time be true, Christ be lying.

 

My time of tossing my pearls to the swine is through. You all are past reason.

[Moontanman]

No tedrick, the shore does not erode at a constant rate, it comes and goes over time, there is no constant rate of erosion this one thing you keep claiming has no basis in reality. If what you say is true at the lowest rate you claim all the beach towns i live hear would be gone by now. You are asserting something that is a lie, creationism and hydroplate theory are a lies, made up to support fairy tales! Take your pearls and swallow them backwards.

[CraigD]

Rock cycle? That replaces lost sand? You dodge the question and the glaring problem of coastal erosion and geologic time tables. There simply is not enough erosion on anything to make this planet billions of years old.

Tedrick, several people have already pointed out mistakes in your interpretation of some literature on plate tectonics and coastal erosion, and pointed you toward important geological concepts such as the rock cycle, apparently without much impact, so my efforts may be likewise futile, but I’ll try anyway to address them as specifically to your interpretations as I can, in the hope that this will help you realize you errors.

 

Replacing lost sand You seem to believe sand is a special sort of mineral that can be replaced only by sand (ie: “sand volcanos”). Sand, however, is eroded rock, most commonly the quartz ([ce]SiO_2[/ce]) component of granite. Granite and similar sources of sand are most commonly intrusive igneous rock – that is, formed from magma that cools and solidifies within the crust of a planet, then is exposed as the surround softer, typically sedimentary and metamorphic rock, errodes. Thus, as Eclogite noted, sand is included in the rock cycle.

 

Continental shelves You seem to believe the continental shelves are the remnants of land that has eroded into the ocean. The continental shelves, however, are land submerged when the global sea level rose following the end of the last period of glaciation, about 15,000 years ago, and are predicted to be exposed again in about 50,000 years – short time periods by geological standards.

 

I think these two misunderstandings of conventional, textbook geology, are enough to set you up to misunderstand the chapter of Robert Stuart’s online oceanography textbook, Our Ocean Planet you linked to and quoted, “coastal errosion”. Thus, quotes from there such as

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.

seem to have led you to conclude that allcoast are erroding at a rate of 2 or more feet per year, and coastal accretion is very rare.

 

It’s generally correct, though, to assume that, except in unusual times, such as when glaicers form new land via their moraines (for example, all of Long Island was formed about 19,000 years ago by the moraine of a glacier of the last glacial period), net coastal erosion exceeds accretion. In general, new land is created by volcanos, while old, volcanically inactive land is gradually eroded away.

 

I think you should take the advice of members who encouraged you to study conventional geology – either in a class, or from non-religious textbooks. You appear to me to simply be misunderstanding some basic geological concepts, and by this misunderstanding, to have been made susceptible to religiously motivated pseudoscience

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

...

I unsubscribed from these forums in the past because they are only a source of the sheer lack of reasoning power of all those who believe evolutionary time. I am not going to fight a whole onslaught of you all by my self.

Please try to understand I don’t wish to insult you, or fight with you. Nobody is expected to know a scientific subject without studying it. I (and I think others) am trying to encourage you to undertake this study, rather than starting with a religiously derived conclusion, and searching for scientific support of it.

Christ spoke of Creation in Matthew. If geologic time be true, Christ be lying.

Many deeply faithful Christians do not believe this dichotomy exists, finding the moral teachings of the Gospels entirely compatible with the process and findings of modern science. Stephen Gould’s NOMA essays and references, are, I think, helpful in understanding this position – not only for the religionist who feels his beliefs to be incompatible with mainstream science, but of non-religionists who view religionists as being unable to learn science without renouncing their religiosity.

[maikeru]

Plates collide ? They giggle at best. They do not move fast enough to compensate for the amount of erosion. I think this is a red herring and you do not want to deal with the glaring discrepancy. A common tactic would be to insult the presenters intellect which I see you have done with the 'out of your depth' comment.

 

Rock cycle? That replaces lost sand? You dodge the question and the glaring problem of coastal erosion and geologic time tables. There simply is not enough erosion on anything to make this planet billions of years old.

 

Even living things can erode rocks at a very appreciable rate, as plants do by colonizing rocks with their roots and mycorrhizae.