Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom; Alter Kaker; JSDude1
The sediment wouldn't have been deposited like someone frosting a cake. It would settle out and would be thicker in low and valley areas, or under the oceans, than on mountain tops. Be real.

You're right! Which is why you're conflicting with the evidence. There's a thicker layer of sediment on the continental plates than on the ocean floor. Oops.

315 posted on 06/13/2007 7:25:28 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]


To: ahayes; metmom; Alter Kaker; JSDude1
Good point! That never exactly occurred to me before, but on a "young earth, flood geology" model the sediments should be thickest where the flood waters drained to, in the ocean basins. But instead just the opposite is the case. What's more the deepest parts of the oceans should have some of the thickest sediments. But again just the opposite is the case.

Of course this all makes sense on the conventional model: The ocean crust carries less sediment because it's far younger than the continental crusts. And within the oceans the deep sea trenches, where new oceanic crust is being created, are the youngest of all.

316 posted on 06/13/2007 5:27:12 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson