Salt in Oceans

Yep. When salt water freezes the salt is excluded from the ice crystals. The build up of ice would have increased the salinity of the oceans, and the opposite would have happened once the ice melted.In fact, it is this freeze/thaw cycle that powers ocean currents. As ice freezes at the poles it produces dense, cold water due to it's temperature AND it's salinity. This mechanism is part of the thermohaline ocean currents (notice the name thermo-heat and haline-salt).

I like the job the admins are doing around here, the thread was getting off-topic but they brought it back in. Yes I acknowledge that fact and I doubt we have found all the sodium sinks. But the ones assumed by Humphreys and Austin account for only 27%, there is still a missing 63% to be accounted for equilibrium (although technicallt you don't need exact equilibrium since the earth's age is not infinite in the past)They have also adressed this fact in the actual paper, along with other facts. I'll reprint it here: About that second part in your comment, maybe it would be interesting to get a grab on the Joly article. Considering it was published 110 years ago, if he had calculated the amount of sodium in the oceans back then we could possibly compare it with today.Of course that would not be really bulletproof, but we could do it just for the fun of it. BTW, Humphreys-Austin article doesn't calculate it in terms of concentration, but in terms of the amount of sodium, Which isn't affected by glacier melting since even if the concentration changes (due to more water) the actual amount of sodium isn't changed.PS I've checked out the aluminium argument brought up very early in the thread since I found it very interesting. After checking a couple of places, I realized that Humphreys and Austin had adressed this very example in their paper lol : Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Yeah I didn't recheck your calculation, since I have no reasons to think they are wrong. I would suspect that the variation in the concentration would be very, very minimal, as your cal. pointed out.So I doubt we could be able to see any kind of trend in measurements of the concentration even in the past decades, especially with global warming melting ice and so makes the concentration drop in the ocean.That's why it could be fun to see if Joly had made any estimates of the global amount of sodium in the ocean in his days (not just concentration)

Sorry slevesque, That you are citing as evidence an article that says "many evolutionists have been diligently searching for sodium outputs" cries BS to me. First of all the term 'Evolutionist' is meaningless. I assume the term means evolutionary biologists. I would be curious to hear one name, one researcher in evolutionary biology who is studying sodium outputs in oceanic systems. Diligently searching? Name one.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

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, from an outsiders look, it is not impossible that some geologist in the last century have looked into this. You have to remember that this idea of dating method came in the 19th century, proposed by Haley (the one that is famous because of his comet).This method was first tried by Joly at the beginning of the century (1899). He encountered the problem of missing sinks, and left the dilemma unsolved.Now unless you think that NO one in the scientific community since then has looked into this before Humphreys and Austin came along, than yes you may think that this claim is BS.But reasonnably, I think that an unsolved problem always attracts the interest of a scientist once in a while, and it is certainly logical that geologists have been looking to solve it in the past 110 years.EDIT: I'll reiterate that I don't care what semantics you use. I don't get it why it bothers anyone that someone says ''evolutionist'' or ''Darwinian'', or any such words. I certainly don't waste my time correcting everyone when someone talks about creationists with the word ''fundamentalist''. As long as I understand what the person means, I don't care what word he uses ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

They most probably have. However, geologists are NOT evolutionary biologists. Which is what Lithodid was asking for. No. He thinks it is BS because it uses the term "evolutionist". Biologists don't concern themselves with salt concentrations in the oceans, so they wouldn't have looked into it. Thus, the claim is meant to portray evolution in a bad light, while in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think they probably have. But not evolutionary biologists. Because they are meant to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, while it has nothing to do with that. That's dishonest behaviour. While YOU might understand what they mean, there are others who don't. It is because of them these terms are used, to put them on the wrong idea.

---

I hunt for the truth

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

Evolutionist was a rather poorly chosen term, but instead of going off on a branch and arguing semantics, can't someone offer some new insight into where the sodium is going?!
I, for one, am curious about how much salt is lost in the subduction of tectonic plates, and whether incorporation into clay sediments (I might just be talking gibberish here) might account for the missing salt. Has anyone found any research on the topic at all? Do we have any geologists on the forum?

Woah there lol. Ok I understand that they should have said geologist (or long-age geologist, to be a bit more precise), but do you sincerely think it is dishonest ?I mean, to re-use the example I said. I don't take it as dishonest when someone refers to creationists as fundamentalist, even though it makes them seem as Al-Quaida bombers lol. (which is more harsh then interchanging geologist for evolutionist, in my opinion)Unless you have a double standard about this; a creationist missusing the word evolutionist is dishonest. An evolutionist (Oops! ) using the word fundamentalist is OK.Or else, you gotta just suppose no one is being dishonest (as I do, I don't consider it worth wasting my time on trying to pinpoint dishonest behaviour, unless it is very, very apparent of course) or else that both sides are being dishonest in their word-choosing.Besides, its getting off-topic again

quote:

---

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.

---

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. In any case, it seems reasonable to think that that Holland guy would have put all the major ouputs in his book ...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 ?

you are obviously very young and very naive... now there's a surprise Long before anyone had heard of Al-Quaida, we (as born-again evangelical Christians) referred to OURSELVES as fundamentalists - in fact, we coined the phrase "informed fundamentalists" as we thought we were being smart! Fundamentalist theology and liberal theology were the two extremes in Christian circles. This was the early 80's. Calling a Biblical creationist a fundamentalist is no more insulting than calling him a Christian. Using "evolutionist" to refer to any non-creationist scientist is idiocy at best, and in Humphrey's case (as a "scientist") reveals just how much he has screwed up his own head. Given his bumbling ignorance in his creationist "cosmology", I wouldn't trust him to tie his own showlaces...

Maybe it is because I'm french-canadian and so we don't refer to christians as fundamentalists around here (enlgish isn't the language I speak usually lol)Anyhow, I'm pretty sure Humphreys and Austin used the word evolutionist as simply meaning ''those who believe in evolution'', not as biologist ...In the same manner that when someone poses a geological that favours an old-earth, they say it poses a problem for creationists, as simply meaning ''those who believe in creationism''But thats another subjectEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

And providing just a bit more context for Slevesque, the term "fundamentalism" as a label applied to conservative Christians emerged in the 1910's in reaction to a set of books published in reaction to concerns about liberal trends and describing what it called "The Fundamentals" that emphasized, among other key points, the inerrancy of Scripture.I personally was engaged in debates with fundamentalists about creationism years and years before I'd ever heard of Al-Qaeda, but the extremism of Al-Qaeda has brought increased attention to concerns about the potential dangers of fundamentalism in any form. The analogs between conservative Middle East Islamic countries and America's Bible Belt in terms of ignorance, backwardness and militant attitudes are not subtle.--Percy

That's good to know, thanks a lotBeing in Canada I'm not aware of what happens down in the bible belt (I'm not even sure where it is lol)

Doings in the Bible Belt don't make it to New England, either. It isn't because you're in Canada that you don't know this, it's because you're unfamiliar with the background details of the creation/evolution controversy. The Canadian editions of books about it are not edited to excise the portions about the origins of fundamentalism, and the web is country neutral, so the information is available to you.Summarizing this topic so far, it would seem that accurately assessing the rates of all the various inputs and outputs of oceanic salt is not a simple task.--Percy