quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Salty seas. Salt lifted back out by plate tectonics? Actually, take these measurements of net influx of Na+ ions into the oceans (taking into account upliftings, actually how does plate tectonics influence it? At the rate continents drift, a few cm a year, it cant be significant). Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year. The minimum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. (using a submarine groundwater discharge of 0.01-10%). And even then, recent studies show that the rate it enters oceans is even faster: That submarine groundwater discharge (SGWD) is as much as 40% of what rivers discharge. Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 122 million tonnes of sodium leaves the sea every year. The maximum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year.
Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years.
Ooh...ooh...ooh...[*hand raised straight up, waving excitedly*]
I'll take this one... it's one of my favorites.
Assuming you are refering to the Austin and Humphries who wrote this...
The Sea's Missing Salt
...the solution to this problem lies in the comically incorrect assumptions of these supposed Creationist "scientists".
If you read all the way to footnote 49, you will see that Austin and Humphries did NOT, in fact, use the maximum possible Na output in their calculation:
"A greater value for B4max can be obtained if the very unusual Messinian (Late Miocene) evaporites of the Mediterranean region are assumed to be of marine origin..."
Well, only a deluded Creationist would doubt that these evaporites are "of marine origin".
"W. T. Hosler et al... estimate the Messinian rock salt mass, which allows the Na+ mass to be estimated at 5.8 x 1017 kg. This mass is about 13% of the world's rock salt No+ and 4% of the Na+ in the present ocean. If the "Messinian salinity crisis" is assumed to have had a duration of one million years, B4max would be 5.8 x 1011 kg/yr, a value slightly greater than all the combined inputs."
So A&H use a value for removal by halite deposition that is
14 times lower than this Miocene event. So much for using "maximum outputs" in their calculations.
How do they rationalize ignoring these data?
"The "Messinian salinity crisis", however, is admitted by many to be a truly extraordinary event. It cannot be used to estimate the long term removal rate of Na+ in halite."
A truly extraordinary event?
Really?
Evaporites of equal or greater size are found throughout the Geologic Column. How can we then justify ignoring them? The Messinian event alone is enough to balance the books for the Cenozoic period.
There are similar problems with many of the other outputs and inputs calulated by A&H. Overall, it is mundane example of
"garbage in, garbage out"... if you use enough foolish assumptions, your conclusion will be completely incorrect.
™ Version 4.2