Salt in Oceans

Hi slevesque and welcome to EvC Forum. 1715 and 1899 eh? I love the way creationists keep up with the cutting edge of modern research!

quote:

---

This is the link to the Humphreys and Austin research on this which I am sure everyone has already seen and ''debunked'

---

As you guessed and as you will now know, this paper is not exactly news to folks round these parts. I first came across it in a debate here.What shocked me about it was that it was pathetically easy to debunk. All it took, even for a total layperson like me, was a brief bit of reading up on the subject of halite deposition to spot the errors in the Austin and Humphreys paper. Just as Dr A said, it ignores known mechanisms of salt removal.Startlingly, it ignores the phenomenon of salt-water flooding creating massive inland lakes, which eventually dry up, leaving enormous salt deposits. Salt deposits like this are now mined commercially. They cover thousands of square miles. It is hard to imagine how honest and competent researchers could have missed so obvious a flaw in their paper.The answer is obvious of course. Austin and Humphreys are either not honest, not competent or neither honest nor competent.Probably the latter.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Take note that I am not the one who is making this claim, Humphreys and Austin are. So I cannot speak for them, nor do I have access to the information about this. I would not even no where to start looking.

---

But you are, in effect, making the claim. You are the one bringing up Austin-Humphreys as though it were a respectable paper.They claim that "evolutionists" have been searching for salt output, but the lie is given to this by the fact (which has already been mentioned) that they ignore known forms of salt deposition.Where do Austin and Humphreys address salt deposition from flooding? Note that I am not referring to the Flud, but the numerous salt-water floods that have left their mark upon the geology of the Earth?Answer; they don't.Missing out well known examples of salt output like this, whilst simultaneously claiming that there is too little salt output is what makes people accuse them of dishonesty. Certainly it is hard to imagine that Austin and Humphreys are that stupid.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

But here we see a "dating technique" that is not only full of assumptions--faulty ones at that--and omissions, but which also fails to agree with any of the reliable dating techniques.

---

It's worse than that even. The paper makes distinctly uniformitarian assumptions. It seems to assume that we can extrapolate backwards based simply upon the modern rate of salt exchange. This is not only absurdly wrong, but it flies in the face of the criticisms of uniformitarianism which we so often see from creationists.Apparently, uniformitarianism is fine by creationists just so long as it's creationist uniformitarianism.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade