Is the earth really 6,000 years old?

[jonathan]

And now for the finale:

Reiterating: ok to use sea sodium as evidence for a young world

Query from C.E. to ICR

Hello,
I was browsing through your website when I came across the page that has the list of young earth proofs. One that caught my eye was the Saltiness of the oceans argument. Should this argument still be used? I did some research and I found a letter written by Glen Morton to Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys. In the letter Morton claims that Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys ignore some of the biggest contributors to sodium removal from the oceans. He claims that when these output mechanisms are included in the data the problem balances out. Salt input=salt output therefore the saltiness of the oceans is no longer a problem for evolutionists. This is the letter I found [link deleted per feedback rules]
Is Glen Morton correct? Should creationists still use this as a young earth proof? I would greatly appreciate a response.
God bless,
C.E.

Query from C.E. to AiG

Dear AIG,
I recently read an article on your website entitled “salty seas-evidence for a young earth.” I also read the report written Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys which I also found on your website. According to one article I found this information is out of date and no longer accurate. According to [link deleted per feedback rules] written by Glen Morton, Dr. Austin and Humphreys ignore several sodium output processes. According to Morton when these processes are included the dilemma of salt in the oceans is no more because salt input=salt output. I was searched your entire website as well as ICR’s archive and I found nothing directly responding to Morton’s criticism of this argument for a young earth. If the salty oceans argument is flawed why do you still present it on your website?
Thank you in advance,
C.E., USA

Dear C.E.,
I find it deceptive that you would send the same basic question to AiG that you previously sent to ICR last October, especially without telling AiG about my October response to you. I reiterate that response, as it remains pertinent:

No, Glen Morton is not at all correct on this, and sincere creationists can continue using sea sodium as an evidence for a young world. Morton showed you an early letter in his correspondence with Steve Austin and me, but not our replies. He also did not show you how he terminated the correspondence.
Morton thinks the mineral albite would form permanently on the ocean floor, taking sodium out of seawater. But what happens is this: indeed albite forms in mid-ocean vents and takes sodium out of the high-temperature sea water. But then when the albite gets into cooler water, it decomposes into the mineral chlorite and releases the same amount of sodium back into the sea water. That is why albite (in any significant amounts) is found only at the mid-ocean ridges and nowhere else. So his “albite sink” would change into a “chlorite source”, and the net effect on sodium in the sea would be zero.
That may seem technical to you. So here is a non-technical way you can judge for yourself whether Morton is right or not: find out whether he has published his “albite sink” theory in a peer-reviewed secular geochemistry journal. The foremost one has the Latin title Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Such journals would be overjoyed to publish his theory if it were correct, because it would solve the 75-year-old problem Steve and I pointed out, the great imbalance between ingoing and outgoing sodium. The secular science establishment would probably award Morton the Nobel Prize for it!
Moreover, Morton would be very proud to have his theory published in such a journal and would be sure to mention it prominently on his website. Let me know if you find such a citation there. If you don’t, then you know Morton is blowing smoke at you.
Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics’ and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naiveté of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do. Psalm 1:1 promises a blessing for avoiding such company:

“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!”

Instead, delight in the law of the Lord,
Russ Humphreys
Institute for Creation Research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2006/0331.asp

[jonathan]

I would like to reiterate a point made out above. This is a point I have been trying to get people to recognise:

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."⁶

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. ...

...If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."⁷

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."⁸

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.

You see, dating methods rely on the assumptions of the geologic column. Where there is land that is wildly different than the geologic column, (as are many places) then they cannot date a place even with radiometric dating. It just gets left undated. They simply don't know.

Here is an example:

What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results?

Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook,¹ prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department. The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’
This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.
This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.
Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.
We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.
Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’
No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.
Reference

1. Trezise, D.L. and Stephenson, P.J., Rocks and landscapes of the Townsville district, Department of Resource Industries, Queensland, 1990. Return to text.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adiometric.asp

[fearthebug]

do you have any other sources, besides the obviously biased website, "answersingenesis"?

[MelT]

Yet again Jonathon bites the dust with creationist evidence...better start checking the validity of all those things you're cutting and pasting dude, or even have a shot at trying to read them yourself so you know what you're posting...


MelT

[chiefMOJOrisin]

wow guys.

i honestly dont undersatnd how any rational, semi-intellectual human being can possibly think the world is only 6,000 years old. floods happen ALL the time and have been happening for BILLIONS of years. floods are a quite neccessary event. they benefit nature by moving nutrients around.

jonathon- where the fuck did u find scientific evidence that all mountains were under water?? thats just dumb. mountains were formed millions of years ago when the super-continent pangea came together and pulled apart. then after more millions of years, erosion created all the peaks we have today. there is no mother fuckin way any mountian was created in less than even 1 million years. unless formed by a giant impact... but that would be documented or mentioned somewhere during the long, 6000 year history of everything, right?

i also dont think the people cutting and pasting this "scientific evidence" either read them or know who wrote them. 100% chance the author of everything like that is christian. or from a christian organization

please...i beg u naysayers to read this thread below.... (you'll see it has these crazy things called REFERENCES!!!) the site point blank takes "young-earthers' arguements and tells why they are invalid/wrong/dumb/impossible
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#creadate
can't wait to hear the garbage jonathon has to say about that site...... i bet he wont even read it, "bow out" of the thread and then rationalize that since he stopped posting he some how is right

this thread is pretty much a duplicate of....http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritual...od-come-3.html...

where i already pointed out the all of jonathons "evidence' comes from an ridiculously bias website called, "answersingenesis". no shit that site is gonna say the world is 6000 years old. thats like trying to find out about the color blue from a website called "answers in red"

also.... if the earth was only 6000 years old... it would still be molten. when our solar system formed out of the disk of material orbiting around the sun, it was a molten ball for a looooong time before the crust even hardened.

so, you're saying that the explosion from our sun....the entire accretion process.....the cooling process....the forming of the crust.....the bombardment of impactors giving earth water....the forming of mountain ranges (including those under the ocean that dwarf those on land)....and the emergence of man from microbial life forms in the primordial soup all took place in 6000 years. you are nuts.

if the earth was only 6000 years old the moon would fill up our entire night sky and the tides would be several x several times bigger. since the moon formed slightly after the earth.... then u have to throw the creation of the moon in that 6000 years too. certainly a proto-planet the size of mars smashing into a molten earth...thus creating earths own accrection disk and eventually the moon.....would have been noticed by someone, right?? since people were around at the beginning of everything, they surely would have noticed an event like that right??? or do u deny the existance of our moon?? or do u have another 'answeringenesis' the explains the creation of the moon.

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Originally Posted by fearthebug

do you have any other sources, besides the obviously biased website, "answersingenesis"?

thank you!!!

[MelT]

About now, Jonathon will be writing up his last foot stamping missive, along the lines of 'You're all shitheads and I'm going home..." I don't know why I think he talks like Cartman, but it seems appropriate somehow...

MelT

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

jonathon- where the fuck did u find scientific evidence that all mountains were under water??

Maybe it could be the sea-life fossils found at their peaks? Just a guess...

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Maybe it could be the sea-life fossils found at their peaks? Just a guess...

No - that can be easily explain using geology.

Assuming one is not a geology-denier.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Maybe it could be the sea-life fossils found at their peaks? Just a guess...

Where did you hear this? Sounds interesting.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Where did you hear this? Sounds interesting.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, you're going to get sea fossils from just about every location on earth, because most land has been under water at one time or another. Mountains can be caused by two plates (as in the himalayas) pushing up what had been at ground level at one time and taking it up to the top of mountains. Think of some mountains as folds in the landscape. Rock strata tilts and folds all the time.

Where I live was once at the bottom of the sea, there's still evidence of fossilised sand dunes, and sea fossils in the banks of a river near me, that was the sea bed a few million years ago.

MelT

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Makes sense, when the earth was once molten do you think the surface was smooth and then cracked apart from the mantle still being molten and the surface kinda sliding around on it?

I'm trying to think of if there would have been 'natural' mountains without the plates crashing, like the earth cooling and there being a part that was a little uneven... But it seems most likely that it was once all 'flat' and smooth from it being molten and it's own gravity forming it into a ball...

Interesting though, never would have thought that- but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info Melt!

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by MelT

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, you're going to get sea fossils from just about every location on earth, because most land has been under water at one time or another. Mountains can be caused by two plates (as in the himalayas) pushing up what had been at ground level at one time and taking it up to the top of mountains. Think of some mountains as folds in the landscape. Rock strata tilts and folds all the time.

Where I live was once at the bottom of the sea, there's still evidence of fossilised sand dunes, and sea fossils in the banks of a river near me, that was the sea bed a few million years ago.

MelT

The land my house current sits on used to be underneath a shallow tropical ocean.

A friend and rock hound (he has his masters in geology) found a really great sheet of rock covered in trilobite fossils from the Silurian period not 100 kilometers from here.

Crazy huh?

[Medicine Al]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

The land my house current sits on used to be underneath a shallow tropical ocean.

A friend and rock hound (he has his masters in geology) found a really great sheet of rock covered in trilobite fossils from the Silurian period not 100 kilometers from here.

Crazy huh?

Not too crazy, I have a collection of megalodon teeth I collected from the Vermillion cliffs area, north of the Grand Canyon, elevation 6000 feet american, 1900 meters canadian. I also found some dinosaur footprints in the sedimentary rocks, at about the same elevation.

Of course it could all be a plot to fool us into thinking we're not the first ones here...Good props though!

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Tribilites? The ancient roach-like things??? Man I got kicked out of school for accidentally pocketing one when they were showing them in science class back in high school...

Whenever I hear the name I instantly think of that day when they confronted the class saying it was missing... I'm like I don't have it and pull out my pockets only to have it fall out and almost break on the ground I swear I had no idea I had even took it, but they wouldn't believe me. I guess when we were leaving I wasn't paying very good attention to what I was putting away, but Tribilites, man those are some ancient creatures!!!