An open challenge to evolutionists.

[shunyadragon]

Some speculate that the Hudson Bay formation experienced episodic formation over the ages since its early formation. Its existence doesn't mean that the earth was its current size rather it is a remnant of an early crust of a much smaller planet.

Speculation is not meaningful. There is no evidence for such claims as you make.

In fact the evidence of all the rock formations of the early earth before ~3 billion years ago demonstrate that the earth than was roughly the same size as it is today. Cyclic climatic containing cyclic lamellae are found in Archean rocks in dating seasonal deposition of an earth roughly the same age as today.

 

[Colt]

Speculation is not meaningful. There is no evidence for such claims as you make.

In fact the evidence of all the rock formations of the early earth before ~3 billion years ago demonstrate that the earth than was roughly the same size as it is today. Cyclic climatic containing cyclic lamellae are found in Archean rocks in dating seasonal deposition of an earth roughly the same age as today.

Sure there is, the average age of the earths crust is much younger than the Hudson Bay anomaly. About 2 billion years old. Meteoric bombardment was far greater in the earlier accretion stages of the earths growth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure there is, the average age of the earths crust is much younger than the Hudson Bay anomaly. About 2 billion years old. Meteoric bombardment was far greater in the earlier accretion stages of the earths growth.

The average age of crust is lower due to continental drift, and the recycling the crust through the interior of the earth.
Yes, meteor bombardment did take place, but the crust remained as documented by the geologic evidence cited, which you have not responded to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To add to the previous post the reason that there is an "average age of the curst" is because it was not all formed at once. It grew over time as plate tectonics has continually brought old oceanic crust down and partially melted it to form new continental crust. The earliest "crust" is based upon zircon crystals, though that crust would probably be regarded as oceanic today:

Ancient minerals fill in lost chapter of Earth’s history - Cosmos Magazine.

The point is that even at 4.4 billion years ago there was solid crust for the Earth.

 

[tas8831]

Regarding that:

Anat rec 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa
J M Bedford
Abstract

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.