Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.
First of all, the ocean basins as we know them DID NOT FORM at that point. Pengea did not directly form into the continents that we know today. They separated into the northern and southern hemisphere instead: The norfhern hemisphere formed into Laurasia which included Europe, Asia as well as North America. The northern most part of North America was connected to the northern most part of Europe. The southern hemisphere included Antartica, Australia, Africa and South America. (But by 135 Million years ago, the atlantic was then starting to take the form it has now AFTER Laurasia divided into North America and Europe.
And you’ve got your Panthalasia Ocean already in existence then? – over 200 million years ago? The start of the formation of the Atlantic Ocean some 135 million years ago hardly solves your problem as the current sediment load within all the ocean basins can be explained with just 15 million years at current sedimentation rates…
You said in your former response on this matter that subduction doesn’t account for it all… Well, I never disagreed with that here. Tectonic uplift of areas formerly covered by the oceans to the surface is another.
We are talking about 30 billion tones of sediment per year. Why do you bring up arguments that account for no more than 2 billion tons per year? Tectonic uplift doesn’t help solve this problem for you at all… not one little bit relative to the size of the problem itself.
Another reason is that many sediments dissolve: Sediments left by biological organisms, Calcium Carbonate, etcetera.
We aren’t talking about dissolvable sediments here (that’s a different problem entirely for the mainstream position).
But here’s a clencher: I found a paper online that talks about this matter, and it mentions the problem of sediment accuulation verses the time, and then it actually explains why a lot of the sediments are not there.
Your argument doesn’t seem to take that of the sediments sinking at extremely slow rates, and that they travel before being deposited….NOT TO MENTION that the rates vary, they are NOT constant!! With that last detail in mind, the entire “uniformitarian†premise you have is wrong.
This paper doesn’t deal with the overall sediment load being delivered to the oceans at all. Arguing that small particles sink more slowly than large particules does not explain why there is so little sediment on the ocean floors given a delivery rate of 30 billion tons of sediment per year…
The delivery rate of 30 billion tons per year does not vary significantly from year to year. The varying rates of sedimentation that your article mentions is a description of the varying rates of sediment build up on a various regions of the ocean floor. Not all regions have the same rate of sediment build up. Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point that the total amount of sediment, the total tonnage that is current in the oceans, irrespective of its location within the ocean basins, can be explained given just 15 million years…
Honestly, Sean, I have not the slightest idea why you would even want to use this argument against an old earth… especially since it can be so EASILY turned on you! — Let me phrase it: If the earth were really young, and if the plates separated 5,000 years ago during the flood, then we should expect the sedimate deposites on the ocean basins to be uniform.
If the majority of the sediment were deposited very rapidly via very high level water runoff after the Flood, the majority of the sediment would be deposited close to the continents and on the continental shelves. As the continents moved rapidly away from each other at first, the level of sedimentation would have declined to the current level rapidly over time leaving much less sediment for the mid regions of the oceans – as we see today. There is no inconsistency with the catastrohic Flood model here.
They aren’t. Also, even if you were correct that there is too little sediment in the ocean basins for them to be as old as you they should be,…there is still too much (I repeat TOO MUCH) sediment on the sea floor for the basins to only be 5,000 years old. From that stand point, the basins (as well as the earth) would still be much older than your literalistic reading of Genesis says!!
Again, you’re forgetting about the catastrophic nature of the Flood model and its aftermath. Sediment can be eroded very very quickly during and after a catastrophic Flooding and break-up of the continents…
So geologists are involved in a mass conspiracy to cover it up?
Obviously, geologists don’t like to talk about things that they can’t remotely explain with their preferred paradigm.
Sean, the continents are not dead pieces of rock. I know that about 3700 meters worth of sediment has been eroded off the continents, but even you you put the eroded sediment back into place, they would not make the continents 3700 meters higher. The mantle of the earth would simply absorb around 1200 meters worth, to cite Glenn Morton who is a former “Flood Geologist.†(See: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm )
As I’ve noted for you several times now, it isn’t the actual height of the continents above sea level that’s the problem for the mainstream theory. The problem is the preservation of very old sedimentary layers on the continental surfaces – especially the mountain ranges. These layers should have been washed away many times over by now. That’s the problem.
— Also there is the detail that not everything that erodes on the continent leaves the continent, but gets deposited at another location. — And again, rates of erosion vary. There is NO RULE that says the rate of erosion does NOT change! There is no basis for that view. We have examples of the earth building the continents now, and the erosion rates are NOT stopping them. Erosion rates in the Hymalayas from being uplifted by tectonics. Another great example is in Hawaii…where lava from Kilawea has actually added (as of 1994) as MANY as 491 acres of land!!! —- Obviously…OBVIOUSLY!!! The erosion rates you keep parroting ARE NOT constants!! They vary!!!!
Erosion rates do vary, but the overall global erosion rate is pretty constant. It is hard to imagine how it could have been dramatically lower than it is today throughout the past 15 million years, not to mention the past 200 million years or so. Also, you keep arguing for the ability to build mountains despite high erosion rates but forget that mountains are still eroding even while they are gaining altitude. It is just that they are being uplifted faster than they are being eroded. Again, this presents a problem as to why the sedimentary layers have not been washed off these uplifted surfaces many times over by now? – down to the underlying granite?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Phil Mills:
One of these frequent posters claims to be a Young Earth Creationists, but believes in creation based on what he refers to as “faith.†One could get the idea that he fears that anything scientifically shown to support creation is actually bad since it would then somehow require less faith to believe. His faith, however, is more akin to the Catholic student who is reported to have said, “Faith is what you believe that you know ain’t so.â€
This is not Biblical faith. Neither is it the faith of the Adventist pioneers. It certainly doesn’t build faith, it actually destroys genuine faith. This pseudofaith more closely resembles a mere superstitious belief. It is no surprise that agnostics, evolutionists, and other doubters have such an affinity for those who possess this kind of “faith†on this site. Why wouldn’t they agree with it. It doesn’t threaten them in any way. It bolsters their ranks. It confirms their unbelief since they already believe faith is unreasonable.
I couldn’t have said it better myself…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:
Of course it’s a good thing; I never said it was bad. The problem is when you and Pitman maintain that empirical evidence from nature is essential to validate the Bible–and that is heresy and blasphemy.
You yourself made this “blasphemous” claim when you listed off several empirical evidences, like fulfilled prophecy (based on empirical investigation of real history), as reasons why you believe the Bible to be superior to other books claiming to be the true Word of God.
Here is what you wrote:
In short, there is ample evidence to support the Bible and Christianity, including fulfilled prophecy, the lives and testimony of the apostles, archeology, the impact of the Bible on personal lives, and so forth. All of this is “empirical evidence†that goes beyond what is needed to establish the validity of scripture. The other religions are confronted with serious shortcomings on these issues, in my opinion… – Professor Kent
Now, if the Holy Spirit is enough, as the Latter-day Saints believe, to lead you into all truth without having to use your brain, why did you appeal to these empirical evidences to support your belief or faith in the superior credibility of the Bible vs. other competing options held in higher regard by other faiths? Why didn’t you just appeal to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you as evidence enough?
So, the argument here isn’t really over the need for an empirical basis for one’s faith in the Bible before it can be considered rational. You yourself appeal to such. You admit to the need for an empirical argument as the basis for choosing the Bible over other competing options. You’ve made this argument several times now. Therefore, the real argument here is in regard to your notion that the empirical basis, or “weight of empirical evidence” for faith never changes or needs to be re-examined in any way over time – despite the discovery of new evidence and information?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777:
You missed my overall point. The first sentence I quoted from it was: The rates at which sediments accumulate vary enormously, owing to the natural variability of the processes that produce and transport sediments. — The rates vary greatly depending on the conditions… Your argument pre-supposes that the rate has not changed, and you have not demonstrated that it has. — And frankly, it doesn’t have to be.
You misunderstand the “rate” that the author is talking about here. This rate is not the overall rate of ocean sedimentation which is in fact fairly constant at ~30 billion tons per year. I’ve already tried to explain this to you, but the variability your reference is talking about is the local variability that is indeed due to many factors of sediment transport within the oceans themselves. This local variability does not affect the overall sediment load that is consistently delivered to the oceans.
— David E. Thomas says it much better than I ever could:
…much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not good clocks.
Indeed, and my calculations take into account all the sediment currently in the oceans, to include the sediment on continental slopes and shelves and river deltas. The total amount of sediment, taking all of these factors into account, is only 10^17 tons. That tonnage can be explained in just 15 million years. That’s a huge problem for mainstream theories of plate tectonics and the proposed age of ocean basins. Your arguments about the variability of sedimentation for different parts of the ocean floor are completely irrelevant to explaining the total tonnage that is currently in the oceans regardless of its location.
I heard one geologist call it a “crude†dating method. Looks more related to “relative dating,†not “absolute dating.â€
Again, you’re looking at local rates of accumulation over time, not the overall rate of accumulation over time. You’re confusing two separate concepts here. They aren’t the same thing.
Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point that the total amount of sediment, the total tonnage that is current in the oceans, irrespective of its location within the ocean basins, can be explained given just 15 million years… – Sean Pitman
And the paper I linked a while ago using the current rate gave the figure of 100 million years: (“At a rate of 0.5 cm (.2 in)/1000 years, it takes only 100 million years to accumulate 500 m (1600 ft) of sediment,â€)
Indeed – the local rate of sediment accumulation on some areas of the ocean floor may indeed be this slow. Again, however, this is completely irrelevant to the fact that the total sediment contained by all the oceans in the whole world, to include the sediment that is on or close to the continent shelves, is far far too low for them to be nearly as old as mainstream scientists propose…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
