Moderator: Community Team
universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
mrswdk wrote:You expect 120 million years' worth of sediment flow to just build up into a giant underwater mountain or something?
Did the Amazon or Mississippi rivers even exist when Pangea split?
That's enough horseshit science for today.
hahaha3hahaha wrote:Chang would rather mock, than actually answer the question. Whether this is because of an ineptitude to do so is the million dollar question
universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
mrswdk wrote:This thread, like the Darwin one, should have been strangled at birth. Everyone out and stop fuelling the flames of chiro's insanity.
universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
universalchiro wrote:universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
I hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations. But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth, so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits. I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.
Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?
universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits
BigBallinStalin wrote:universalchiro wrote:universalchiro wrote:The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?
In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?
I hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations. But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth, so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits. I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.
Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?
He's kind of like Lionz, in that he won't address the good questions--especially if they contradict his perspective, and then he'll follow up with more questions. There's no learning going on with this one.
Frigidus wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
He's kind of like Lionz, in that he won't address the good questions--especially if they contradict his perspective, and then he'll follow up with more questions. There's no learning going on with this one.
Lionz would throw in a lot of 'maybe's and 'perhaps's so that he could always back off of any statement he made. Chiro is a little easier to dissect since he takes a firm stance.
oVo wrote:universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits
How do you figure this? What is 40,000, 400,000 or 400,000,000 years of river deposits supposed look like?
universalchiro wrote:oVo wrote:universalchiro wrote: only has enough sediment for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits
How do you figure this? What is 40,000, 400,000 or 400,000,000 years of river deposits supposed look like?
This is a wise question.
We are able to observe, discern, calculate and measure the rate of deposits out of the mouth of rivers to form deltas. Utilizing this rate of deposit and viewing satellite images from NASA, there is but a simple conclusion, the amount of delta deposit, divided by the rate of deposit = a very young age. Not 120 million years, not even 1 million years, not even 100,000 years, not even 10,000 years, but roughly 4,500 years.
An explanation of, "well maybe the location of the mouth of the river changed", well rivers are dynamic for sure, and small changes of 50ft to 50 miles happens, but the sediment flowing from the river to it's destination remains close enough to still calculate and add up all small changes in the deltas. And the amount doesn't exceed roughly 4,500 years. Plus NASA satellite images removes the guessing game and the maybe,what it games, and reveals that the deltas of the oldest rivers of the world have not changed. And the amount of sediment in the Deltas of the Nile, Amazon, Congo, Mississippi, Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow, etc. do not exceed the approximate timeline of 4,500 years of age.
So ask yourself, if the continents are 120 million years old, wouldn't there be a delta of sediment build up that exceeds 5,000 years? If you can't find such a delta, then one should reevaluate the 120 million years of age. And not to 119 million years of age, but far far younger than you are comfortable with. ie young as in accord with the Bible.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users