Coastal erosion rates point to a young earth!.mov

[@mkummer22]

Nice video Paul! I agree, there's such overwhelming evidence against an old earth (in all spheres of science) that it truly is disappointing (but not surprising due to the metaphysical implications of a belief otherwise) that it remains the intellectual status quo. Such an interesting and faith-building topic notheless!

[@lddjpoetry8203]

Plate tectonics creating new land might explain away erosion, if and only if, fossils didn't exist. Younger Earth makes more sense.

[@markgenesis333]

California coastal erosion is about 8 inches per year. (1) California coast is about 80 million years old (2) 63,360 inches = 1 mile 63360 inches per mile / 8 inches ≈ 8000 years to erode away one mile of coast. 80 million years / 8000 years = 10,000 miles of erosion in 80 million years. Total erosion in 80 million years = 10,000 miles Distance from Los Angeles to New York = 2,462 miles 1) www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/CA/Beach_Erosion 2) www.geologycafe.com/geologic_history/index.html Erosion is problematic for evolution time scale!!!

[@kentwilkens3435]

The video is mathematically challenged in the first minute. General premise is correct, but if you are off in your calcs by three decimal places (100000%), then it does pose questions on the rest of it. He says erosion at bay of Fundy is 2 feet per year. That works out to 2 million feet in a million years. Divide that by 5260 feet to get 378 some miles. He says 600000 kilometers. (meters?) Also, taking an extreme case in the bay of Fundy is not appropriate either. You need to take the average along the entire Atlantic shore, which is 3 -6 " per year. This also lines up nicely with most shoreline erosion rates worldwide. Run those numbers and North America and Australia are gone within 10 million years. Don't try to prove your point unless you can use a calculator. ;)

[@Globalstudent]

Thank you for pointing out my error of calculation. My hastily computed calculations were out by an order of 1000 as I inadvertently equated meters with KILOMETERS. 🤔 So given the existence of four major coastlines and an overall coastal erosion rate of some 8 feet or 240cm per year, it would take about 16 million years to eat away that much shoreline (equal to the circumference of the earth). The overall point still stands. Coastal erosion forbids the notion of a static landmass existing out of the reach of the oceans for 5 or 6 billion years.

[@kentwilkens3435]

@@Globalstudent like I said, the general premise is correct. I started on this journey 15 years ago when at a beach in South Carolina, there were bricks on the beach. Where did these come from? A town offshore. We are on the shore, there is no town offshore! Correct, it was about a mile offshore a hundred years ago. Investigating, average erosion is about 6" per year along the Atlantic coast. Same with the Pacific coast. My calcs at the time had the continent lasting 10 million years, so how is it remotely close to the age the evos say it is? Many lighthouses on the east coast have to be moved back, or let them wash into the sea. When I lived in California and the storms showed up, we could always look forward to a house in Malibu washing into the sea. The same with our time in Australia, shoreline erosion has the continent gone in under 10million years.

[@Argillaceousfingers]

you fail to take into account that rates vary over time and by location, an average is not enough, you need to see detail. You also fail to date into account rates of deposition and uplift. you also get the age of the earth wrong it's 4.5bn, and in regards to deposition in the ocean you and fail to take into account how the sediment is compacted and subducted. Marine fossils are found in rocks on land due again to uplift. subduction and sea level variation. plus more errors besides

[@danny1ft1]

You should really study something before you make outlandish claims that ammount to nonsense...