Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 38)
Message-ID: <597@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:55:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.597
Posted: Fri Jul  5 16:55:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 06:34:32 EDT
References: <396@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 65

In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
> 
>        70.  The occurrence of abnormally high gas  and  oil  pressures
>             within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids
>             were formed or encased less  than  10,000  years  ago.  If
>             these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago,
>             leakage would have dropped the pressure  to  a  level  far
>             below what it is today [a].
> 
>             a)  Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH  MODELS  (London:
>                 Max Parrish, 1966), p. 341.

High pressures are found in permeable rocks that are CAPPED BY IMPERMEABLE
ROCKS.  The pressure is due to the lower specific gravity of the oil and
gas (compared to the water upon which it floats within the permeable
rock.)  An analogous situation would be a waterglass inverted into a
pool of water, trapping air inside.  If you put a tube down to the glass,
and measured the pressure of air coming from the glass, it would be positive.

>        71.  Over twenty-seven billion  tons  of  river  sediments  are
>             entering  the  oceans  each  year.  Probably, this rate of
>             sediment transport was even greater in  the  past  as  the
>             looser  top  soil  was  removed and as erosion reduced the
>             earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the
>             sediments  that  are  now  on  the  ocean floor would have
>             accumulated in  only  30  million  years.  Therefore,  the
>             continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a].
> 
>             a)  Stuart E. Nevins, ''Evolution: The  Ocean  Says  No!''
>                 SYMPOSIUM  ON  CREATION V (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975),
>                 pp.  77-83.

This entirely overlooks the simple fact of recycling of sediments into rocks
and back into sediments.  Not to mention the fact that much of the ocean
floors is considered to be very young (because of generation of new ocean
floor and subduction of old.)

>        72.  The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level
>             them  in  much  less than twenty-five million years [a,b].
>             However, evolutionists believe that the  fossils  of  land
>             animals  and  plants that are at high elevations have been
>             there for over 300 million years.
> 
>             a)  Nevins, pp. 80-81.
>             b)  George  C.  Kennedy,  ''The  Origin   of   Continents,
>                 Mountain   Ranges,   and   Ocean   Basins,''  AMERICAN
>                 SCIENTIST, 1959, pp. 491-504.

This entirely overlooks the fact of orogeny.  New mountains can be built
faster than they erode: I think this has been measured in the Himalayas.
Anyone know of a reference to the rate of building?

>        73.  The rate at which elements  such  as  copper,  gold,  tin,
>             lead,  silicon,  mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering
>             the oceans is very rapid  when  compared  with  the  small
>             quantities of these elements already in the oceans.  There
>             is no known means by which large amounts of these elements
>             can  precipitate  out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans
>             must be very much younger than a million years.

Because you are ignorant, you are able to conclude that?  Amazing.
Know-nothingism at its finest.    (***sarcasm***)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh