PDF file available here<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#c1dbf4″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Are there \u201cincontrovertible\u201d reasons to affirm a young Earth? What does it mean to be incontrovertible?\u00a0 Some YEC seem to believe that this means that it is claimed by any YEC author that they appreciate.\u00a0 It is easy to list claims that might sound impressive.\u00a0 What happens if we dig into those claims?\u00a0 Can they stand up to analysis?<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-17px|||||” custom_padding=”0px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”|0px|0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and water has been eroding sediments and dumping them into the oceans, why aren\u2019t the oceans all filled with sediment? \u00a0This sounds like a reasonable concern.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cReasons to Affirm a Young Earth<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0 (Humber 2013)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0The reason given in this case is:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a023.\u00a0 Ocean Floor Mud<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Humber gives very little explanation on this particular \u201creason\u201d, but it is used by other prominent YEC authors.\u00a0 For instance, Dr. Andrew Snelling stated, \u201cIf sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep<\/em>.\u201d (Snelling 2012).\u00a0 Apparently, he believes that geologists consider the oceans to have begun 3 billion years ago and that the processes today can be extrapolated directly back over the intervening time.\u00a0 Some YEC believe that this is inherent in the uniformitarian claim that the present is the key to the past.<\/p>\n The claim is that the amount of sediment that is shed into the oceans and the sediment thickness found there are known. Then, taking into account that a known amount of sediment could have been removed by other processes (plate tectonics), they have used these three numbers to estimate how long it would have taken to deposit that amount of sediment. They then, using the time that geologists believe that these oceans were filling, compare to see if the assumption for sediments depositing over deep time is reasonable. \u00a0This type of claim involves two sides.\u00a0 It involves the numbers that are used to support the claim. \u00a0It also involves understanding if these numbers are valid for this use.<\/p>\n First, let\u2019s look at the input numbers.<\/p>\n 1. How much sediment is shed into the oceans?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Snelling reported on this issue in the 2012 article referenced above and in his book, \u201cEarth\u2019s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood\u201d. (Snelling 2009)\u00a0 In 2009, he reported that \u201cthe average rate from a dozen studies is 24,108 million metric tons per year<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 He says that these do not include sediment carried along the base of rivers as bedload.\u00a0 In 2012, he reduced his number to \u201cabout 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 One key paper that he cites is Milliman and Syvitski, (1992).\u00a0 This quote from them should serve as a warning regarding basing too much on the quantitative estimates of sediment discharge.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat Is the Sediment Flux to the Sea? This question really has two parts: how much sediment is carried by rivers, and how much escapes the present-day land\/estuarine environment? The answer to both is more or less the same- we don’t know<\/em>.\u201d(Milliman and Syvitski 1992)<\/p>\n A couple of more recent studies can serve as comparison.\u00a0\u00a0 Dedkov and Gusarov (2006) reported \u201cThe total global suspended sediment yield into the World Ocean equals 15.5 \u00d7 109<\/sup> t year<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Notice that they include only the suspended sediment, not the bedload.\u00a0 In another paper, Cohen, et al.,(2022) reported the following, \u201cTotal global particulate load of 17.8 Gt\/y is delivered to global oceans, 14.8 Gt\/y as washload, 1.1 Gt\/y as bedload, and 2.6 Gt\/y as suspended bed material<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Cohen, et al (2022) started their abstract this way, \u201cBedload is notoriously challenging to measure and model; its dynamics, therefore, remains largely unknown in most fluvial systems worldwide<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Perhaps this difficulty should be recognized, and we must recognize that the range in uncertainty in these estimates is large. It does tell us that the numbers quoted by Snelling are larger than newer estimates, though this alone would not really change the conclusion.<\/p>\n If we are looking to see the rate of sediment supplied to the sea over geologic time, the present rates are not representative.\u00a0 We will talk about more reasons for this later, but at this point, A key point to the study by Dedkov and Gusarov (2006) was to examine the human impact on sediments supplied to the ocean. They report, \u00a0\u201cRecent human activity has increased suspended sediment yield into the World Ocean by 2.6 times.\u201d Human cultivation and effects on river drainage has had a major impact.\u00a0 \u00a0If we take Cohen\u2019s total particulates and reduce it by 2.6 times, this would mean a total load of 6.8 billion metric tons, significantly less than the 20 assumed by Snelling (2012).\u00a0 Said another way, he is overstating the \u201cproblem\u201d by 62%.<\/p>\n Suffice to say that there is considerable uncertainty in the quantity of sediment supplied to the sea off of the current continent configuration that might be used to calculate how much sediment to use in equations to assess this claim.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n \u00a02.\u00a0 How much sediment is in the oceans?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n How well do we know how much sediment is in the ocean?\u00a0 Fortunately a number of studies have been published.\u00a0 Snelling and young earth authors reporting this issue refer to a 1988 paper by Hay, Sloan and Wold (Hay, Sloan II, and Wold 1988).\u00a0 This is a good paper, but one issue is that it is really studying the sediment that is found on the ocean floor without addressing the sediment on the continental shelf, following the practice of earlier studies (Figure 1<\/strong>).\u00a0\u00a0 Along active tectonic margins like California, this not included shelf area is narrow, but along many margins, this represents a thick area with major deposition.<\/p>\n Figure 1.<\/strong>\u00a0 Illustration of ocean sediment not in the models used. (figure expanded from<\/span> https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/subjects\/geology\/plate-tectonics-passive-continental-margins.htm<\/a> )<\/p>\n The most current estimates include this shelfal area and also are able to include other sediments that just were not included in earlier estimates.\u00a0 Straume, et al (2019) provide the latest major study and they estimate the average thickness to be over twice the estimates given by Snelling and other YEC authors.\u00a0 They report: \u201cIn addition, we calculate the total volume of sediments in the oceans, which shows an increase of 29.7%, compared to previously published global maps.\u201d (Straume et al. 2019)\u201d\u00a0 Figure 2<\/strong> shows this in map view. \u00a0The large blue areas on this map represent large areas with very little sediment accumulation.\u00a0 Why would that be?\u00a0 In fact, this is not surprising at all. It would be very difficult to get any sediment from the erosion of continents onto these.\u00a0 Locally thicker sediments can be shed off of volcanic islands, but the main source of the sediments is the slow rain of organic matter forming an ooze, a real technical term for slimy muddy material formed this way. \u00a0Thick sediments in these areas would really require special explanation but we don\u2019t find them.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure <\/strong>3<\/strong>:<\/strong>\u00a0 Sediment thickness of the World’s Oceans and Marginal seas. (Straume et al. 2019)\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Notice that the thickest sediments in the ocean are in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Indian Ocean where they were shed off of the Himalayan Mountains.\u00a0 Much of the thickest sediment accumulation would not have been included in the study by Hay, et al, 1988. Hay\u2019s study had the purpose to study the accumulation on the abyssal ocean bottom.\u00a0 YEC estimates report that the thickness is less than 400 meters thick, based on Hay\u2019s study (Snelling 2009; 2012; Humber 2013; Tomkins and Clarey 2021).\u00a0 Straume, et al. (2019) reported an average sediment thickness of 927 m. \u00a0\u00a0Thus we have an increase in the amount of sediment in the ocean by 56% over the estimate quoted by YEC authors. \u00a0So far, the sources of data used seem to have been inappropriate and\/or passed by with newer data.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n \u00a03. How much sediment is removed by other processes?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n So far, we have less sediment flowing into the ocean and we have more sediment in the oceans.\u00a0 The effect of these, less input and more output, suggests that the sediment accumulation would have taken longer to form.\u00a0\u00a0 Are there other ways that could remove sediment and thus increase the amount of time required?\u00a0 One key component of plate tectonics is that along plates that are colliding, sediment is caught up with subducting plates and lost to the crust. \u00a0Snelling reports, \u201cOnly 1 billion tons (5%) are removed by tectonic plates\u201d (Snelling 2012). \u00a0Again, several estimates have been made. Stern (2002) observed this:<\/p>\n \u201cEstimates of the mass of sediments subducted annually range from about 1 1015<\/sup> g\/yr\u00a0 [Veizer and Jansen, 1985; Hay et al., 1988] to 3\u20134 1015<\/sup> g\/yr [von Huene and Scholl, 1991]\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 (Stern 2002)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is worth noting that Hay, et al (1988) considered their estimate of 1 1015<\/sup> g\/yr<\/em> a minimum number. While the first numbers quoted formed the basis for the estimate quoted by Snelling, what if the later number by Von Huene and Scholl (1991) is valid?\u00a0 Consider this scenario, with the units converted.\u00a0 If we take the total particulates presented by Cohen, et al. (2022), reduce them by 2.6 times as proposed by Dedkov and Gusarov (2006), this would mean a total load of 6.8 billion metric tons supplied by rivers each year.\u00a0 The plate tectonics loss determined by Von Huene and Scholl (1991) of up to 4 billion metric tons per year, then, taking into account the increased sediment thickness when the continental shelves are included, it begins to look like the amount of sediment is almost balanced by the amount lost by plate subduction.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4. How long do geologists believe the ocean floor sediment took to be deposited?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Last May, my wife and I took a driving vacation including a short excursion into Washington, D.C.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t go straight there by any means and it took much more time than would have been required to go directly there.\u00a0 Imagine that a friend asks \u201chow long did it take you to get to the capitol?\u00a0 I could have answered truthfully that it took me 68 years to get there. Such an answer would have been factual, but probably not helpful to the questioner. Given that we went approximately 2000 miles to get there, our average rate of travel would have been really slow considering the 68 year time.\u00a0 We would have been travelling at a gruesomely slow rate of 0.003 miles per hour, roughly a literal snail\u2019s pace.\u00a0 We actually spent 12 days traveling, including a bit of unscheduled layover for car repair. This equates to about 7 miles per hour and given that we weren\u2019t actually driving for much of the time, that is a bit more representative.<\/p>\n Calculating the time it took to deposit the sediment in the ocean is a bit like this as well.\u00a0 If YEC want to say that the deep time explanations for the filling of the oceans do not work, then they need to use the actual time durations accepted my modern geology. \u00a0Dr. Snelling, as quoted earlier referred to 3 billion years of ocean filling.\u00a0 In a since it is true that geologists believe that oceans have been filling for that time, just as it took me 68 years to get to Washington, D.C.\u00a0 On the other hand, geologists believe that the current oceans have been filling for much less time.\u00a0 One could consider the current configuration of the continents and the sediment filling the oceans to have been taking place perhaps since the beginning of the Jurassic, approximately 200 million years ago.\u00a0 Olson, et al., (2016) writing on \u201cVariation of ocean sediment thickness with crustal age\u201d used roughly the beginning of the Cretaceous period, 150 million years ago as the period of time to be investigated.\u00a0 That tells us that if we compare these numbers to Snelling\u2019s figure of 3 billion years ago, geologists believe that much less time was involved (93 \u2013 95% less) in the deposition of the sediments on the seafloor.\u00a0 This fact is recognized by Snelling (2009) and Tomkins and Clarey (2021), but it is more dramatic to misrepresent modern geology by speaking of 3 billion years.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The factors discussed so far can easily account for the modern sediment supplied to the oceans.\u00a0 But wait\u2026 there\u2019s more (a bit like the adds for wonderful devices sold on TV).\u00a0\u00a0 First, <\/strong>remember that geologists believe that the Earth\u2019s history was dynamic.\u00a0 We cannot look at the rivers of today and assume that what we see today was constant over the last 150 million years.\u00a0 This becomes important in several ways. First, at times in the past, oceans covered much of today\u2019s continents. Thus rivers in those periods were dumping sediments into the seas, but the sediments that were laid down are on today\u2019s continents and were not included in the sediment thicknesses used for YEC claims.\u00a0 Figure 3<\/strong> shows a paleogeographic map of what we believe the continents looked like 94 million years ago. (Scotese, n.d.).\u00a0 Notice that large portions of the modern continents were covered by seas. Rivers dumped sediments into these ancient seas but it does not appear in the YEC calculations. When I was exploring for gas in South Texas, I wanted to study outcrop analogs for the Cenozoic wave-dominated deltas that formed the sands that were our targets.\u00a0 I went on a great field trip to Utah to study Cretaceous wave-dominated deltas there. They were sands fed by rivers to the sea. How significant are these onshore deposits?\u00a0 Figure 4<\/strong> shows the total sedimentary thickness maps for North America and the surrounding oceans. (Mooney and Kaban 2010)\u00a0 Much of that sediment is less than 150 million years old and would then add to the sediment record of ancient river deposition.<\/p>\n In assuming that geologists view the present as same as the past, the YEC interpretations are strawman arguments in another way as well.\u00a0 Geologists recognize that over the last 3 billion years many changes have taken place that would have dramatically impacted the amount of sediment shed to the ocean.\u00a0 Over the last 150 million years the overall climate trends have varied.\u00a0 If we zoom into the last 450,000 years, it has varied very sharply. (Figure 5<\/strong>)\u00a0 Colder periods are expected to have higher rates of sediment washed to the seas.\u00a0 Colder wet periods had more rainfall.\u00a0 Large continental glaciers pushed continents lower, but when the glaciers retreated, the continents rebounded as we measure them doing today in North America and the Nordic regions.\u00a0 In fact, the amount of sediment delivered to the sea over the recent thousands of years still feels the effect of glaciation to increase rates over earlier rates and then we have the added impact of human that increased them even more.<\/p>\n Figure <\/strong>4<\/strong>.<\/strong> Where did ancient rivers dump their sediment? This helps. \u00a0Paleogeographic map of the Late Cretaceous from Christopher Scotese.<\/span> http:\/\/www.scotese.com\/cretaceo.htm<\/a><\/p>\n \n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/jesusinhistoryandscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/N-Am-sediment-thickness-2-1024×776.png” title_text=”N Am sediment thickness 2″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Figure <\/strong>5<\/strong>. <\/strong>\u00a0Sediment thickness map for Norh America.\u00a0 Note that the colors are reversed from Figure 2.\u00a0 Thickest sediments are blue in this map while they are dark red on the other map.\u00a0 (Mooney and Kaban, 2010)<\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Figure <\/strong>6<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Major climate changes recoded through geologic time.\u00a0 Inset shows that the last 450 thousand years has experience many shorter order cycles.\u00a0 Figures from Wikipedia.<\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/jesusinhistoryandscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ice-age-timeline.png” title_text=”ice age timeline” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In this post, I have examined the sources and support for the claim that there just isn\u2019t enough sediment on the ocean floor to support deep time. This claim is not\u00a0 isolated to Paul Humber or Andrew Snelling.\u00a0 In general, the reports seem to just parrot earlier claims without anyone looking at later work or critically assessing the details.\u00a0<\/p>\n They overestimate the sediment supplied to the oceans today and neglect to compensate for the impact of humans on current rates. They assume that the current rates should be extrapolated back over hundreds of millions or billions of years despite abundant evidence that for much of the last 150 million years of deep time, less sediment would have been delivered to the oceans.\u00a0 Much of that which reached the seas would be found on today\u2019s continents and this is\u00a0 not included.<\/p>\n The average thickness on the ocean floor is reported to be 400 meters. We have seen that this neglects to include the major deposits by rivers along the continental shelf.\u00a0 If included this would have more than doubled the average thickness. Thick deposits on the abyssal floor should not be expected because sources from the continents just would never have reached them.\u00a0 No one proposes a way to estimate how much sediment is shed each year from the continental shelf to the lower slope or basin floor. Ultimately this alone invalidates the YEC proposals.<\/p>\n Their assumption of how much sediment on the ocean floor exits by way of plate tectonics and plate subduction is likely low.\u00a0 It is reasonable to conclude that the sediment input from rivers fits well the amount of sediment on the seafloor.\u00a0 The balance of inputs with that exiting by subduction is what one should expect from a system designed by a highly intelligent benevolent creator preparing a planet for mankind.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n References Cited<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Cohen, Sagy, Jaia Syvitski, Thomas Ashley, Roderick Lammers, Balazs Fekete, and Hong-Yi Li. 2022. \u201cSpatial Trends and Drivers of Bedload and Suspended Sediment Fluxes in Global Rivers.\u201d Water Resources Research<\/em> 58 (6): e2021WR031583. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2021WR031583\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n Dedkov, A P, and A V Gusarov. 2006. \u201cSuspended Sediment Yield from Continents into the World Ocean: Spatial and Temporal Changeability.\u201d In Sediment Dynamics and the Hydromorphology of Fluvial Systems<\/em>, 3\u201311. Dundee, UK. https:\/\/iahs.info\/uploads\/dms\/13527.05-3-11-Dedkov—Gusarov-306.pdf<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Hay, William W., James L. Sloan II, and Christopher N. Wold. 1988. \u201cMass\/Age Distribution and Composition of Sediments on the Ocean Floor and the Global Rate of Sediment Subduction.\u201d Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth<\/em> 93 (B12): 14933\u201340. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/JB093iB12p14933<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Huene, Roland von, and David W. Scholl. 1991. \u201cObservations at Convergent Margins Concerning Sediment Subduction, Subduction Erosion, and the Growth of Continental Crust.\u201d Reviews of Geophysics<\/em> 29 (3): 279\u2013316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/91RG00969<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Humber, Paul G. 2013. Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth<\/em>. Vol. e-book revision. https:\/\/static1.squarespace.com\/static\/54235fb7e4b0dab08d8d81dd\/t\/57d6e6b3d482e999611d7888\/1473701556828\/ReasonsAffirmYE+CRS+e-book.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0J_JCi_6zH1KuNlHYrgIJjTAhCgOm4zwio8ks44k5CGnJIAiETnqThXLI_aem_BA94GfB1gm5q86tQj_pW2w<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Milliman, John D., and James P. M. Syvitski. 1992. \u201cGeomorphic\/Tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the Ocean: The Importance of Small Mountainous Rivers.\u201d The Journal of Geology<\/em> 100 (5): 525\u201344. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/629606<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Mooney, Walter D., and Mikhail K. Kaban. 2010. \u201cThe North American Upper Mantle: Density, Composition, and Evolution.\u201d Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth<\/em> 115 (B12). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2010JB000866<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Olson, Peter, Evan Reynolds, Linda Hinnov, and Arghya Goswami. 2016. \u201cVariation of Ocean Sediment Thickness with Crustal Age.\u201d Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems<\/em> 17 (4): 1349\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/2015GC006143<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Scotese, Christopher R. n.d. \u201cPaleomap Project: Cretaceous.\u201d Paleomap Project. Accessed January 14, 2025. h.<\/p>\n Snelling, Andrew A. 2009. Earth\u2019s Catastrophic Past<\/em>. Institute for Creation Research. http:\/\/isgenesishistory.s3.amazonaws.com\/digital%20downloads\/earth-catastrophic-past-1-preview.pdf<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Snelling, Andrew A. 2012. \u201cVery Little Sediment on the Seafloor; Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth.\u201d Answers in Genesis. October 1, 2012. https:\/\/answersingenesis.org\/geology\/sedimentation\/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor\/<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Stern, Robert J. 2002. \u201cSubduction Zones.\u201d Reviews of Geophysics<\/em> 40 (4): 3-1-3\u201338. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2001RG000108<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Straume, E. O., C. Gaina, S. Medvedev, K. Hochmuth, K. Gohl, J. M. Whittaker, R. Abdul Fattah, J. C. Doornenbal, and J. R. Hopper. 2019. \u201cGlobSed: Updated Total Sediment Thickness in the World\u2019s Oceans.\u201d Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems<\/em> 20 (4): 1756\u201372. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2018GC008115<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jesusinhistoryandscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ocean-averages-1.png?resize=1024%2C365&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jesusinhistoryandscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/sedthick9.jpg?resize=1024%2C950&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
Other Factors<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jesusinhistoryandscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Scotese-Cretaceous.png?resize=1024%2C646&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nConclusion:<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n