Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
40 online now:
frako, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,360 Year: 1,108/23,288 Month: 1,108/1,851 Week: 232/320 Day: 4/87 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 1 of 116 (508497)
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


Now, I'm all new to this site. And it seemed to me (via the ''search button'') that this topic of not enough salt in the oceans hadn't had a thread of its own.

Considering that this method was first brought in Newton's days, and that the problem of missing salt was found out by John Joly (geologist,physicist) who calculated a maximum age of 98millions years. I have never found any peer-reviewed article that resolved it. I thought it would be cool to discuss it on here

here are the references to Halley and Joly's article:

2.E. Halley, ‘A short account of the cause of the saltness [sic] of the ocean, and of the several lakes that emit no rivers; with a proposal, by help thereof, to discover the age of the world’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 29:296–300, 1715

3.J. Joly, ‘An estimate of the geological age of the earth’, Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, New Series, 7(3), 1899; reprinted in Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, June 30, 1899, pp. 247–288

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

http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html

Here is the link to the talkorigins article which attempted to rebute it (unsuccessfully):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

For those who do not know the subject a lot, a quick resume is that there is an input of 450 millions tons/year of salt going in the oceans, while only 27% goes out (as calculated by Humphreys and Austin)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2009 11:17 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 05-14-2009 11:51 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 05-14-2009 12:03 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 05-14-2009 2:20 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2009 12:11 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12655
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2 of 116 (508500)
05-14-2009 11:07 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 116 (508503)
05-14-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 4 of 116 (508504)
05-14-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


Here is the link to the talkorigins article which attempted to rebute it (unsuccessfully):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you feel the explaination given there is unsuccessful?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2009 11:57 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 116 (508505)
05-14-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
05-14-2009 11:51 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 05-14-2009 11:51 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5425
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 6 of 116 (508506)
05-14-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


Hi, Steve! Welcome to EvC!

The same reasoning can be applied to the aluminum content of the oceans to "prove" that the Earth was created during President McKinley's administration. Austin and Humphries are not being truthful.....and do you know anyone that remembers the guy before McKinley?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html will give you more detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by deerbreh, posted 05-27-2009 4:27 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5738
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 116 (508507)
05-14-2009 12:25 PM


Some more references:

INFLUX OF OTHER ELEMENTS TO THE OCEAN (from Dalrymple, G. B., 1984, 'How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to "Scientific" Creationism,' in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds)).

The Sea's Salt by Glenn Morton.


  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 8 of 116 (508515)
05-14-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


Seen It, Debunked It
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 116 (508523)
05-14-2009 3:55 PM


Thanks for the greetings people! (except for Dr Adequate, what's with all the arrogance lol ?)

Ok I'll start by saying that my first langage is french, and so I will probably do some mistakes while writing in english

''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''

''This makes it very different from papers published in 1715, which are totally reliable''

''1715 and 1899 eh? I love the way creationists keep up with the cutting edge of modern research!''

Some of you mentioned that the references I gave were real old (1715 I think). I didn't intend these for any kind of support, I just put them as the historic aspect of the dilemma. Just to show that Humphreys didn't come up with this method.
- The first paper was the first time it was mentioned as a possible dating method
- the second paper was the first time it was used as a dating method

Other then for the historic aspect of this, they obviously have no relevance (my first time here, but i find it surprising someone actually thought i was using a 1715 paper as support lol)

''So, even according to Young Earth Creationist estimates, the Earth is at least 98 million years old.''

Two errors here, Joly is not a creationist first of all. You should maybe have some respect for your fellow evolutionist. Second, the 98 million years is a maximum age, not a minimum. Since he was a long-ager, he knew that something was wrong with his calculations. But he left the problem unresolved.

''The same reasoning can be applied to the aluminum content of the oceans to "prove" that the Earth was created during President McKinley's administration. Austin and Humphries are not being truthful.....and do you know anyone that remembers the guy before McKinley?''

The link you gave referenced to an article by Henry Morris. His argument is very different from Austin-Humphreys: he only calculated the amount of an element in the sea and divided it by the input per year. the flaw is of course that he didn't consider the output.

So I don't see how Austin and Humphreys are being untruthful because Morris was. They did calculate an output, and so their argument has no real relevance with Morris'.

''Some more references:
INFLUX OF OTHER ELEMENTS TO THE OCEAN (from Dalrymple, G. B., 1984, 'How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to "Scientific" Creationism,' in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds)).

The Sea's Salt by Glenn Morton''

The first link refences to Morris' data again, so the above applies as well. The second link is the one that is relevant, so we will adress it here. (on the next page, it will by less messy)

BTW, How do we quote on here lol ?

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminModulous, posted 05-14-2009 4:11 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 10 of 116 (508525)
05-14-2009 4:09 PM


First off, I will give you the response Humphreys gave to the arguments advanced in Morton's paper:

No, Glenn 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.

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 naïveté 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

Morton repplied to this by editing at the end of the paper. I don't know if you have read it, but if not go read it now.

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, 80°C, 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.

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 personnal reason. Or it did not/would not pass peer-review.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 05-14-2009 4:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 5:05 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 2:26 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 11 of 116 (508526)
05-14-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
05-14-2009 3:55 PM


Formatting help can be found here. As a quick start:

[qs]This is a quote[/qs]

becomes:

This is a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 3:55 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5425
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 12 of 116 (508530)
05-14-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
05-14-2009 4:09 PM


I'm no expert on this either, but it seems that most of the albite would be below the sea floor, and that circulation of water would stop or at least slow down dramatically as plate motion moved it away from the hot mid-ocean ridge. Without water flowing by, most of it would stay as albite, even at cooler temperatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 4:09 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5738
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 116 (508532)
05-14-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
05-14-2009 4:09 PM


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.

Note that Humphreys' paper is not published in a peer-reviewed technical journal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 4:09 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 6:38 PM JonF has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 14 of 116 (508543)
05-14-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
05-14-2009 5:05 PM


Note that Humphreys' paper is not published in a peer-reviewed technical journal

Yeah I noted that too

But then again, his paper doesn't solve the 100 year-old problem, it just brings it back to life ...

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 5:05 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 7:16 PM slevesque has responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 3115 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 15 of 116 (508547)
05-14-2009 7:09 PM


Sleveque,

what confidence do you have that we understand all the sources and sinks of sodium?


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 7:50 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020