Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

I'm sorry, but I wasn't very impressed by your total misunderstanding of the issue, when you uterly destroyed a 'salinity concentration' strawman.I know salinity changes when you had water, but I also know it doesn't change the amount of Na+ in the water.AbE: Let's discuss the salty oceans first, then we'll talk about radiometric dating and how the helium diffusion in zircons comes into play.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed:

quote:

---

B4. Halite Deposition. Many have assumed that the major pathway for Na+ removal from today's ocean is the deposition of the mineral halite. However, the major halite deposits accumulate currently from concentrated river water on the continents, not from the ocean. Modern marine sedimentary deposits are nearly devoid of halite. Recent marine salt flats and coastal lagoons occur along the Persian Gulf, along the Gulf of California, and on the west coast of Australia, but they have very meager deposits of halite. When halite is deposited in marine salt flats and coastal lagoons, freshening of the brine after deposition often redissolves the halite. Solution of halite in seawater occurs because seawater is very undersaturated in both Na+ and Cl-. In fact seawater could contain 20 times its present concentration of Na+ before deposition of halite would occur. Thus, modern sedimentary conditions seem to prevent large, permanent accumulation of halite in marine environments. The world inventory of modern marine halite deposits must be accumulating today at a rate of less than 1 x 108 kg/yr. Thus, the flux of Na+ in modern marine halite deposition is: B4 < 4 x 107 kg/yr. Today's oceanic output of Na+ as halite is trivial when compared to the modern river input.

---

quote:

---

Evolutionists have claimed that the process of halite deposition (B4) is much different today than in the past. They admit that modern marine halite deposits are of trivial volume, but attribute ancient massive halite deposits to short, irregularly occurring episodes. Drever, Li and Maynard speak for many evolutionists who believe: "...such events appear to be well able to absorb the river excess over long periods of time ...... [46].

​

Na+ in earth's halite deposits is a relatively small sink for Na+, as can be appreciated by "time averaging" it over the supposed duration of the deposits. The present inventory of rock salt in the earth's strata contains about 4.4x 1018 kg of Na+ [47] which is 30% of the mass of Na+ in the ocean. Dividing the present mass of Na+ in global rock salt (4.4 x 1018 kg) by the supposed duration of the Phanerozoic deposits (6 x 108 yr) gives an average rate of Na+ removal for the Phanerozoic of 7.3 x 109 kg/yr. This flux is an order of magnitude less than the sea spray output process (B1.".) and cannot serve to balance during long time intervals any of the major input processes (A1min, A2min, A3min or A10min). Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that the "time averaged" halite output contains a significant error. No major quantity of halite in the earth's crust could have escaped our detection. Because halite is dominantly a basinal deposit on continents, it is unlikely that any major quantity has been extracted by subduction from the crust into the mantle.

​

We can estimate B4max by an analysis of halite deposits of the Permian System. The Permian contains the world's thickest and most extensive marine halite deposits. Of the 4.4 x 1018 kg of Na+ in the earth's rock salt, 1.0 x 1018 kg (23%) resides in Permian rock salt [48]. Assuming that 50% of the Permian halite strata have survived erosion (a good estimate based on the continental exposure of Permian basinal deposits), the original Permian Na+ mass would be 2 x 1018 kg. The "time averaged" maximum rate of removal of Na+ by halite deposition is estimated in reference to the supposed 50 million year duration of the Permian Period. The maximum rate of Na+ removal by marine halite deposition (B4max) is 4.0 x 1010 kg/yr [49]. The rate is only 67% of the present river input of Na+ derived weathering of silicates (A2). Even more interesting is the observation that B4max is about half the present river flux derived from solution of continental chloride minerals (A3).

​

Past halite deposition (B4max) is not the major process that has been supposed: it ranks third behind past sea spray (B1max) and cation exchange (B2max). Halite in the earth has not been the major sink for Na+ generated by supposed hundreds of millions of years of continental weathering.

---

The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma For Evolutionists Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions') I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess.I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.

I'll dig back up my old thread and answer this over there.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I think you are exagerating this to the point it becomes clear strawman.Glacial moraines are glacial moraines in the creationist litterature, for example. Some other geological features vary slghtly in their interpretation; sand dunes are explained to be underwater sand dunes.And also, note that their is also a bit of a circular reasoning in all this. Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe this is how it forms in the first place.The reality is, had you not have any preconceived notions on how chalk forms, this particular explanation certainly wouldn't jump at you when you would look at chalk for the first time. It would simply look like chalk, and who knows if after examination you would have arrived at the same conclusion as the one you have now.

Of course, and we have discussed this once before, remember ? I had given you a link which had the angle of repose of wet sand at 25 degrees, the exact angle the coconino sand dunes are at. (While desert sand dunes would produce angles of 34 degrees)I also referenced you a secular geologist who used the angle discrepency in that sandstone to argue for an underwater formation.Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 211—213.Yet you still think your own back-yrd experiment trumps all this ? really ?If you still want to discuss this, make a new thread and I'll join in.

Creationist models have always had a gliciation period following the flood. Nothing new here I think. A rate which can vary with changing conditions. But I'll reformulate my phrase to make my point more explicit I guess:Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe it needs millions of years to form in the first place.

The experiment is irrelevant, because it doesn't reproduce the conditions under which the sand dunes actually would have formed underwater. Sand waves are formed during large storms or amplified tides, for example, and unless your experiment reproduces these conditions, how can you claim it is representative of anything ?Add on to that the fact that when we observe present-day sand waves, they can easily have an angle of 25degrees (with in some situation 30 degrees)Just a moment...Coupled with the fact that sand dunes produce an angle of 34degrees, not 25, and I am befuddled by the fact you still cling on to any of this because of your unpublished back-yard experiment.

Make a new thread about it, or find an existing one so we can discuss it over there.This is all off-topic here.AbE. Just to make sure. There are answers to all these questions.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.