Catastrophic Global Erosion Rates ! ...

The rate of global erosion tells us something very obvious about the age of the earth.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Erosion
• Geology
• Sedimentary
• Rock
• Rain
• Rainfall
• Igneous
• Geography
• Age
• of
• the
• Earth
• Environment
• Obvious
• Ancient
• Atmosphere
• Disaster
• Flood
• Catastrophe
• Young
• Old
• Change
• School
• Debate
• Controversy
• Naturalism
• Goof

[Mattw2020]

Your points show a very low level of understanding of scientific theories particularly those used in geology. Please learn what the scientific explanations for the world are before you start reading trash from long debunked and ignored websites like answersingenesis.

[alyosha24601]

@Mattw2020 Your reply is pretty typical, basically just a religious declaration of faith in the state mandated creation myth coupled with an insult. If you would like to challenge my presentation with a scientific fact however, please do so. Have a look at present day erosion rates, consider that any uplifted rock will be igneous - not sedimentary, then try to explain why the continental underwater alluvial cones date to only 30,000 years at present rates of deposition. The earth is young.

[Mattw2020]

this has to be a troll video, nobody is that dumb even in america, right?

[alyosha24601]

@Mattw2020 If you have a scientific objection to the content, then lets hear it. Insults do not qualify - that's what trolls do. By the way, both the Sahara desert and Great Barrier Reef have been found to be only 5000 years old. The Mississippi delta cone is 30,000 years old (based on today's rates of accumulation). Salt accumulation in the ocean also yields a young date. C-14 is would in all dino bones and even in diamonds. How do you explain all this? Follow the science. This world is young.

[alyosha24601]

@SeanPatrickMartinez ...all short-lived phenomena: they cannot exist for "millions of years". As for their age, I think they are very close to our own, but I wasn't there. The solar system, and particularly the sun, moon, and Jupiter, are perfectly placed to preserve life on earth. Even a small change would destroy (fragile) life here. If you follow the SCIENCE, without the religious requirement for a naturalistic creation, the science will lead to a creator. It's the same in all disciplines.

[SeanPatrickMartinez]

@alyosha24601 Okay, then what about carbon dating sample dating back millions of years? How do dinosaurs and the fossils they leave behind play into your theory? What about the age of the other planets in our solar system? Are they the same age or was Earth somehow created millions of years after the solar system formed?

[alyosha24601]

@SeanPatrickMartinez Take the moon's orbit, it moves out 1 cm a year. Or how about the earth's rotation, it is slowing at about 1 second every two or three years. These things negate the possibility of an old earth. Or how about He and C-14 in the atmosphere - neither have yet reached equilibrium!!! If you just follow the science WITHOUT the religious/faith-based "there must be a naturalistic explanation" you'll see it's young. Bristlecone pine fossils tell us it's about 6600 years old.

[SeanPatrickMartinez]

@alyosha24601 Hmmmmm, those are some pretty good points. But I'm sure there has to be other things that show the Earth is older than 5,000 years. But are you also arguing that God created the Earth 5,000 years ago?

[alyosha24601]

@SeanPatrickMartinez Well, I am disappointed, but, yes new rock is continually being formed, but it is igneous rock, not sedimentary. There is no way our world is so old. Why are the Great Barrier Reef and the Sahara desert exactly 5000 years old? Why is the underwater Mississippi Delta cone dated at only 30,000 years? Why isn't the sea entirely salted, when there is no mechanism to remove the 450 million tons of salt it gains every year? Why has the magnetic field declined 14% since 1829? Etc.

[SeanPatrickMartinez]

@alyosha24601 Sorry, but my comment was totally sarcastic. You do realize new rock is being formed everyday? I'm sorry but this theory of yours is just not adequate.