Tentofield claims that evolutionists have refuted creationist claims that there is not enough sodium in the sea for the sea to be ancient.
However the evolutionists counter argument uses *assumptions* that the earth is ancient. This is the kind of circular reasoning often used by evolutionists.
If you don't approach with the assumption of antiquity then his and many other methods indicate that the earth is young.
2007-01-20 21:13:01 · 8 answers · asked by a Real Truthseeker 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
There are no assumptions that the Earth is ancient. There are measurements. There are many different ways of measuring the age of rocks and all of them use good science. One method by itself might be questionable but when three or four different methods used by different people all come up with the same result then it is highly likely that the results are correct.
The creationist literature ignores any science which they find inconvenient or glosses over it relying on the ignorance of their audience not to notice.
Don't get your science from creationist web sites, there is no science there. A good web site to use for evolution and the age of the Earth is the Talk Origins Archive
http://www.talkorigins.org
All the articles and papers there are well referenced so you can check what is being said and there are recommendations for further reading. Find out what science is saying from scientists , not some charlatan at Answers in Genesis.
By the way, did you read the references and recommendations in the piece I posted in answer to your original question?
2007-01-21 07:16:22 · answer #1 · answered by tentofield 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scientists are usually unafraid to speak out against prevailing opinion. So what do we have here?
Austin and Humphreys are both affiliated with creationist research. They have looked at the evidence and made claims about a young earth.
However, notice that they only propose 7 mechanisms for the removal of sodium. Various other studies show that there are at least 16 other mechanisms which have been selectively ignored.
Interstingly, Austin cites data from certain papers and then ignores what the rest of the paper says (such as in the case of the biological methods of salt removal - Holland 1984)
In the case for refuting the claims, there are no mentions of the circular arguments you suggest - instead they are based on facts and figures which have been ignored or misrepresented.
Classically, one paper Humphries cites he has misrepresented the output of a particular process by approximately 35 times - making a 23% process into a 0.67% process
These errors and misrepresentations simply mean that Austin and Humphries paper cannot be taken seriously because they are inconsistant with the papers they cite.
2007-01-20 22:43:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
could it be that the polor ice caps are melting? could it be that the rest of the salt is in salt lake city? could it be that they are just trying to use the ocean as an excuse to keep our eyes of of another subject? the world may never know.
2007-01-20 21:22:36 · answer #3 · answered by misstress n 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The earth is old enough to be so much polluted---and sea water is definitely adequately salty.
2007-01-20 21:21:53 · answer #4 · answered by hymy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not enough salt in the sea! Then why is the dead sea named "The dead sea". surely no more salt is needed.
2007-01-20 21:28:28 · answer #5 · answered by Nutter 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's only an *assumption* as you so charmingly put it if you're not religious, and specifically not Christian, and not the type of Christian who believes the word of the bible down to the letter.
there's a lot of other cultures out there. sorry.
2007-01-20 21:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by whoopscareless 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scientific theory V Creationism I know which one bank on. Scientific theory.
2007-01-22 09:00:09 · answer #7 · answered by CLIVE C 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
how much salt should there be?
Your "evidence" doesn't state this.
2007-01-20 21:49:42 · answer #8 · answered by nonono 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋