|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Salt in Oceans | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, even according to Young Earth Creationist estimates, the Earth is at least 98 million years old.
Nice going guys. Of course, it's older than that, because the poor little YECs ignored many well-known mechanisms of salt removal. This is why they have to go back to 1715, let's say that again, 1715, to find a scientist sufficiently ignorant of geology to support them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you feel the explaination given there is unsuccessful? It doesn't say what he wants to hear. This makes it very different from papers published in 1715, which are totally reliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. [...] Finally, on that last bit about Nobel-prize, publishing in journals etc. Although it is pretty much irrelevant to the subject, you have to say that if Morton really has found the solution to Joly's hundred year old problem, it would have been published. Two solutions: either Morton never wanted to get it published for some unknown personal reason. Or it did not/would not pass peer-review. The obvious answer to this is that albitization of sodium is not Glenn Morton's theory, and has been published in peer-reviewed journals by the people who actually found out about it. Indeed, in Morton's article he explicitly states that his facts and figures are taken from K. L. Von Damm, "Controls on the Chemistry and Temporal Variability of Seafloor Hydrothermal Fluids," in Humphris et al editors, Seafloor Hydrothermal Systems: Physical, Chemical, Biological and Geological Interactions, Geophysical Monograph 91, (Washington: American Geophysical Union, 1995), pp222-247. Obviously Morton cannot have a paper published which merely reports other people's findings, nor, if he could, would he get a Nobel Prize for doing so, since there is no Nobel Prize in Pointing Out Well-Established Facts In Geology To Creationists. When creationists stoop to arguments as risible as these, it seems to me that it is not Glenn Morton who is "blowing smoke".
Now, I am no expert on this, but there seems to be a difference between what Humphreys said, and what Morton replies. Humphreys says that ''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'' Morton counterarguments this by saying: ''Historically, dissolution rates have been measured indirectly using powdered materials. Rates from albite powders (pH 9, 80C, Burch et al., 1993) correspond to a surface normal retreat velocity of 33.2 10-7 nm/sec.'' Maybe I'm the only one seeing this, but humphreys does say that albite accumulates in high-temperature sea (i think you can consider 80C as high temperature) It accumulates there specifically because it does not dissolve in those temperatures, as the research referenced by Morton points out. But Humphreys says that the sodium in albite is released in the lower temperatures of the ocean, where Morton's reference is irrelevant because it deals with high temperatures. Maybe I'm wrong, and that 80 degrees celsius is considered low-temperature. I'm not an expert on this. 80C is indeed a low temperature compared to the 350C+ temperatures at which the albite forms. Recall that Morton is discussing processes which happen within the Earth's crust: now temperature increases at about 2.5C per 100 meters. This leaves a large volume of crust where albite, if it dissolves at all, will do so extremely slowly. Recall further that the ultimate fate of all oceanic crust is subduction. This, then, would appear on the face of it to be a sodium sink. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Woah, they don't invent the seven outputs in their paper. They take it from ref. no26 (Holland). The ouput table in their paper even seems to have been scanned from that book lol. Not according to Morton. In his open letter to Austin and Humphreys, he points out:
You state that the alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity only removes .4 x 10^10 kg/yr of sodium. You must have missed the table in Holland (1978,p. 199). He says that the removal of sodium by the Mid-Oceanic ridge basalts is 14 x 10^10 kg/yr. According to Holland, this is 23% of the sodium input. This is significantly higher than what you claim. Since your paper refers to this book and fails to discuss that value, it would seem that you might have ignored Holland's data. In any case, I cannot speak for the ouput you are refering to (deposition by flooding). But you have to answer some questions before saying it contradicts their data: Has a statistical study of this ouput being done? If it has, is it important enough to significantly alter the conclusions of their paper ? If it is, than why didn't Morton simply mention it in his rebutal to their paper ? This, again, Morton mentions in his open letter to Austin and Humphreys:
Austin and Humphreys also ignore the existence of bedded salt deposits in the middle of the sedimentary column and its implications for the evaporative removal of salt from the sea. [...] Where in your discussion here do you include the Mediterranean salts, the Zechstein salt of Germany, the Louann Salt of the Gulf of Mexico, the Osprey Salt of Offshore Canada, or the Salina salt of New York? All of these are bedded in the middle of the geologic column and represent huge episodic removals of salt from the oceans by evaporation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have never felt this behavior from creationists at all, CMI even has a page about their old arguments that are no longer valid to use ... Just one page? Not a wiki or something? Ah well, at least that's some progress. Do you have a link to it, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Possibly from the expanse covered by the evaporate and a measurement of the volume of the basin (or depression) that it covers. This doesn't work. The depth of the salt deposits shows that they can't have been produced simply by a one-off event of evaporation of salt water from an enclosed basin. There's too much salt to have been dissolved in the water in the first place. A salt layer 2 km thick, as found under the Mediterranean, surely can't have been deposited as a result of a one-off evaporation of the Mediterranean, which today has an average depth of 1500 meters. Even allowing that it would, at the time of the hypothetical evaporation, have had its bottom at the depth where the bottom of the evaporite layer is now (~ 4km below sea level) that's still way too much salt to be dissolved in it at any one time. You can't have a sea which is 50% salt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not necessarily just the above, but did you pull this info of off some web page (or hard print source)? If so, a link/reference would be good and proper. Not only are you giving credit, but also providing a source for possible further reading. Try Biju-Duval and Montadert, Structural history of the Mediterranean basins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I certainly don't come out on here saying ''look at that irrefitable argument I got people'' you could go one better than that by admitting that your claim has been refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So there are two issues concerning the haltite: What processes formed them in the past, and why aren't we witnessing them right now ? After all, the laws of chemistry didn't change since back then. Uh ... they're there. Even if you came up with some argument that I found totally unanswerable "proving" that the saline giants couldn't have formed, I'd still know that you were wrong because they exist.
Ah, what avails the classic bent And what the cultured word Against the undoctored incident That actually occurred? As a matter of fact, they are easy to explain. No, the laws of chemistry didn't change but the situation did. Independent evidence shows that whenever a halite giant formed, it did so in a basin almost completely isolated from the sea.
Except that I had asked where you get all those calories, it would be peculiar for you to answer the apple instead of the three course dinner. But you're right, it doesn't contradict this second possibility. Would you be so kind as to now identify what this three course dinner is ? I'm fairly sure that we did this in this thread already.
My intuition is that, whatever past mechanism you will propose, it will involved some past catastrophy that will produce the required environment for such depositions, and that oddly enough this environment can probably be produced by some of the events of a world-wide flood. Then I suggest that you fire your intuition and hire a new one.
Isolation from the main body of the ocean would not be produced by a event which allegedly connected all the oceans into one big unbroken expanse of ocean.
Baseless, provocative assertion that adds nothing to the discussion. Curiously enough, there's no forum rule against taunting creationists about the vacuity of their beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Except I never said they couldn't have formed, I asked whatever mechanism you propose, why isn't it happening right now ? 'Cos a basin of that type doesn't presently exist.
Fair enough, but then I'm still left wondering what prevents this from happening right now. Is it such a rare occurence that its not surprising we don't see it in the process right now ? Yeah, it's fairly rare. You need a very specific set of circumstances for it to happen. Either the basin has to be connected to the main body of the ocean by a very narrow channel, or it has to be divided from it by a permeable sill, or it has to be divided from it by a sill which is only overtopped at high tide, or ... well, there are a number of models, but obviously what they all have in common is a basin which only just connects to the main body of the ocean. There's no particular reason why there should be such a basin today, and as a matter of fact there isn't.
A Global flood would have many stages, one of this is the receeding stage. This is where the up-until-now-underwater tectonic plates would start to surface out of the water, forcing the water to receed eventually back to the present-day oceans. Of course, in the process, it is not unimaginable that very large quantities of water could be caught in bassins, unable to join the ocean. There are all sorts of things wrong with this. First of all, if that was the explanation, then the saline giants would all be on the top, wouldn't they? Second, there's the quantitative aspect. As I pointed out in the other thread, the entire evaporation of a whole kilometer of water would result in only 14 meters of evaporites. To deposit four kilometers of salt you need a continuous process. Then again, the entire evaporation of seawater would result in all the evaporites being deposited. Not just the salt and the gypsum, but the whole kaboodle. Finally, show me your "basins unable to join the ocean". The example I gave in the other thread was the Louann Salt. It's under the Gulf of Mexico, slevesque. Now in real geology there was a time when the Gulf of Mexico was only just barely connected to the rest of the ocean. But how does "flood geology" account for it?
And there is nothing preventing me from cutting this discussion short, if I am to be served this kind of bullshit from your part. You may do as you please, but, really, if you're only willing to discuss "flood geology" with someone who won't make fun of "flood geology", then you may have unwittingly stumbled into the wrong forum, accidentally made over 1,000 posts here, and inadvertently become an admin. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, it is happening right now, just on a much smaller scale. Playa lakes are one thing and saline giants are another. Saline giants are huge. The Louann Salt extends over 800,000 square kilometers and is 4 kilometers deep. We're not talking about the same process here. That sort of thing is not happening right now. The formation of playas is not the same thing on a smaller scale, it's a completely different thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How are they different? By ... uh ... not being the same. A playa forms because rain on the hills washes minerals down into a relatively arid environment which water does not flow out of but rather evaporates out of. (The technical term is "internal drainage".) A saline giant forms because a bit of the sea is so isolated from the main body of the ocean that more water is lost by evaporation then flows in. One requires a desert, the other requires an ocean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Both are based on evaporating more water than the inflow. True, but they're still not the same thing. A saline giant isn't just a playa writ large. One forms in the sea and the other forms in the desert. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're looking outside the system for distinctions. The relevant system is a body of salt water. The salt doesn't care where it came from. It deposits by the same process. But it's only "the same process" in that evaporation is involved. Apart from that, no. Deserts. Oceans. Two very different things. You can't just point to the formation of playas and say: "Look, that explains the formation of saline giants", 'cos it really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Keep your eyes on the prize. Which prize? I don't just want to make slevesque less wrong about geology, I'd be equally happy if I could make you less wrong about it too. And it's more likely, what with it not being part of your religion to be wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024