[net.origins] Any Recent-creation Creationists out

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/07/85)

> Better be careful about this question.  It has been calculated from the
> combined effects of suspended particles and dissolved materials removed by
> rivers that the surface of the United States is being stripped away at an
> average rate of one foot in 9000 years.  Other materials in the stream and
> riverbeds (i.e. pebbles and particles which are rolled , slid, and moved
> bodily along the bottom by currents) cannot be measured and are therefore not
> included, leaving a conservative calculation.  For the 1,265,000 square
> miles in the Mississippi River drainage basin, the estimate is one foot
> per 5000 to 6000 years.
> 
> Assuming that factors accelerating the rate (higher average temperature and
> rainfall) would be balanced by factors slowing it down (periods of drought
> and areas of vegetation cover) at the minimal average present-day rate of
> 1 foot per 9000 years, every trace of land would have washed into the
> oceans many times during the 2 billion or more years that life is supposed to
> have been present on the planet.

I hate to be boringly repetitive, but I don't suppose you could
supply us with references?

This reminds me of the article I read about a year ago, from
the journal of irreproducible results.  About how the weight
of all the issues of National Geographic printed since it started
have caused the continent of North America to sink a few feet.

js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/08/85)

> >Subject: Any Recent-creation Creationists out there?
> >
> >2. Has there been any attempt to explain geological features in terms of a
> >young earth? The only discussion I've seen relates the geologic column
> >to a young earth by using a flood-type catastrophe to "sort" fossils.
> >To avoid that, I'd just be interested in hearing why the Rocky Mountains
> >are pointed and rocky but the Appalachians round and smooth if the earth 
> >is young. Erosion, the "creator" of the Grand Canyon and the leveler
> >of old mountains in currently accepted geologic theory, takes a long
> >time to work.
> >Just interested,
> >Frank Fite
> >/* ---------- */
> Better be careful about this question.  It has been calculated from the
> combined effects of suspended particles and dissolved materials removed by
> rivers that the surface of the United States is being stripped away at an
> average rate of one foot in 9000 years.  

     So, with the earth being 20K or so years old, we should expect to see
all of the mountains eroded by a little more than two feet.  Since we
don't, I guess we can just claim that a god created the earth with some sharp,
tall, new-looking mountains and some old weathered-looking mountains.  We
can also claim that he/she rigged a lot of other details about the mountains
in order to make some look old and some look new to all of the geologist's
age-determination methods as well.  What a great theory!  Whenever we find
some evidence against it, we can just say: "Well, God set it up to look that
way."
> Assuming that factors accelerating the rate (higher average temperature and
> rainfall) would be balanced by factors slowing it down (periods of drought
> and areas of vegetation cover) at the minimal average present-day rate of
> 1 foot per 9000 years, every trace of land would have washed into the
> oceans many times during the 2 billion or more years that life is supposed to
> have been present on the planet.

     Sheesh!  Why does this remind me of an earlier creationist arguement
in which the decay of the earth's magnetic field over the last hundred years
was extrapolated back for several thousand years?  Probably because both 
arguements carry a hidden (and contrary to evidence) assumption of 
uniformity where there is no reason to expect uniformity.  Actually, I'm
being unfair, as Eric does reveal this assumption later.
> 
> At this slow average rate more than 42 vertical miles would be stripped off
> the land.  Even though the seas are a little more than twice as extensive as
> present land area, the deposited sediments should have caused the oceans to
> rise nearly 18 miles, making a total of sixty miles the continents would
> have sunk in relation to sea level.
> 
    No chance that the erosion would stop or reverse once a given section of
land sinks below the waves?  The land just continues to sink away?  SIXTY
MILES?  And people wonder why we sneer at creationist 'science.'  Where
would all of the water come from?  Presumably the same place it came from
during the great deluge, right?

> Your are going to need to develop a theory of intermittent land uplift and/or
> sea bottom depression or formation to counterbalance the leveling effects of
> erosion and deposition.  

    No, we won't need to develop a theory like that.  Geologists did it long
ago.  In fact, the crafty devils even arranged to develop that theory before
evolution, so it wouldn't look like they were in league with evolutionists.

> Lief Sorensen
> Hewlett Packard Co.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "If a machine had broken down, it would have been replaced immediately,
     but who can replace a man?"-the penner (Aldiss)

lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (04/13/85)

/***** hpfcrs:net.origins / houxa!fdf /  2:10 pm  Mar 30, 1985*/
>Subject: Any Recent-creation Creationists out there?
>
>2. Has there been any attempt to explain geological features in terms of a
>young earth? The only discussion I've seen relates the geologic column
>to a young earth by using a flood-type catastrophe to "sort" fossils.
>To avoid that, I'd just be interested in hearing why the Rocky Mountains
>are pointed and rocky but the Appalachians round and smooth if the earth 
>is young. Erosion, the "creator" of the Grand Canyon and the leveler
>of old mountains in currently accepted geologic theory, takes a long
>time to work.
>
>Just interested,
>
>Frank Fite
>ihnp4!houxa!fdf
>/* ---------- */

Better be careful about this question.  It has been calculated from the
combined effects of suspended particles and dissolved materials removed by
rivers that the surface of the United States is being stripped away at an
average rate of one foot in 9000 years.  Other materials in the stream and
riverbeds (i.e. pebbles and particles which are rolled , slid, and moved
bodily along the bottom by currents) cannot be measured and are therefore not
included, leaving a conservative calculation.  For the 1,265,000 square
miles in the Mississippi River drainage basin, the estimate is one foot
per 5000 to 6000 years.

Assuming that factors accelerating the rate (higher average temperature and
rainfall) would be balanced by factors slowing it down (periods of drought
and areas of vegetation cover) at the minimal average present-day rate of
1 foot per 9000 years, every trace of land would have washed into the
oceans many times during the 2 billion or more years that life is supposed to
have been present on the planet.

At this slow average rate more than 42 vertical miles would be stripped off
the land.  Even though the seas are a little more than twice as extensive as
present land area, the deposited sediments should have caused the oceans to
rise nearly 18 miles, making a total of sixty miles the continents would
have sunk in relation to sea level.

Your are going to need to develop a theory of intermittent land uplift and/or
sea bottom depression or formation to counterbalance the leveling effects of
erosion and deposition.  The average altitude of the continents is only a
little more than one half mile above sea level, or three miles above the
average sea bottom depth.  During a 2 billion year period, Mount Everest, it
it were to escape eventual disappearance beneath a shoreless ocean, for
example, would have to be re-elevated to its present height more than ten
times.  At the present average elevation of continents, this figure would be
increased to 120 times, all within a time span less than half of the estimated
age of the planet and less than two thirds of the time often speculated that
habitats suitable for life existed.  Furthermore, the erosion rate used for
these calculations is far slower than is evidently necessary to account for
the high quality of fossil preservation existing in many rock strata.  To
be preserved as fossils, most animals and plants have to be covered quite
rapidly or they disintegrate, leaving no trace.

Lief Sorensen
Hewlett Packard Co.