Why is the salinity of the ocean evidence that the earth isnt billions of years old?

Answer 1

A specific rebuttal to Steve M.

"Evolutionists claim an old Earth, because they have to."
Wrong. Cosmologists give us an "old" universe, and an "old" solar system. Biologists (not evolutionists) use Biology in determining a logical scheme which is called the Theory of Evolution.

"All the old Earth sciences has happened after Darwin. It follows that if evolution occurred, than there must be an old Earth."
This is a simple case of non-logic. Modern radiometric techniques have given geologists (not evolutionists) a tool to date certain types of (mostly igneous) rocks. The fact that it happened after Darwin is due to advances in Physics, not as a reason to validate Darwim.

"While Creationists believe in a young Earth, it does not follow that an old Earth, by itself, excludes Creationism. A position many Catholics hold." The reason Science excludes Creationism is that Science does not allow religon to dictate dogma as science.

"So, back to your original question. If we know how many tons of erosion sediment is added to the ocean floor every year (which we do), and we know how much sediment is currently in the ocean (which we do)...than it seems that it should be a pretty easy task to figure how long it took to get there...and...and this is key...the land mass above sea level BEFORE erosion began."
This point assumes no removal of oceanic sediment, which is not the case. At every subduction zone is something called the Accreationary Wedge. This is an area where sediments and water get caught up before being subducted, along with oceanic crust, under continental crust. This widespread and constant process removes sediments, thus negating the above point.

"Guess what, at those rates...all the land mass above sea level erodes away in some 14m years...so 14m years ago there would be double the land mass of today. But we know there wasn't, by the evolutionists standards. We had inland seas, and mountain ranges and volcanoes were still developing. According to evolutionists there was less land mass 14m years ago. Also, how can we then find fossils less than 14m years old? If they were in the ground, at a level above the 14m year old line...wouldn't they have eroded away?"
From where do these mysterious "rates" originate? I see some numbers thrown up and some unsubstantiated "facts" to support them, but that is all. The fact is that mountain building processes are ongoing, due to the effects described by the Theory of Plate Tectonics. As mountains are eroded away, isostacy required a "rebound" effect, since tall mountains have deep roots. Think of an ice cube in cold water with the air at room temperature. As the top of the ice cube melts away it doesn't sink into the water, it rises and allows more of the top of the ice cube to melt. This is the way mountains erode.

"This same sedimentary tests can be applied to any major river delta..there just ain't millions and millions of years of sediment there."
A look at the Mississippi river delta negates this point. Most of Louisanna is land created to this delta. In addition, coastal areas of Texas, Mississippi and Alabama are older parts of this delta. I think that the statement "there just ain't [sic] millions and millions of years of sediment [sic] there" might be wrong.

"Look at the Grand Canyon.....how much dirt must have been eroded away to get that big a hole??? And where did it go??? Because there is not any where near that much dirt at the mouth of the Colorado River."
It is possible that after collecting in the Gulf of California, underwater currents took most of it and deposited it in the Pacific Ocean. Hey! It could happen!

"In science, a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has some evidence to support it."
No, in science, a theory is a logical set of arguments supported by many facts that attemts to explain those facts. A hypothesis is a less formal explaination than a theory.

"A law is a theory that has all the evidence to support it. A theory becomes a law (Law of Gravity, Laws of Entropy, Laws of thermodynamics, Laws of magnetism) when every time you take the theory, and dip it's toes in reality, the theory holds. Every time."
I have never seen this definition of a Law. A law is an explaination of the facts that holds true under a certain set of constrainments. The Law of Gravity requires matter within time-space. The Law of Entropy requires a random universe, despite the fact that order is seen on a local level. The "Laws of Magnetism" are not laws, but are part of the Electro-magnetic Spectrum as proposed by Maxwell. As for "every time you take the theory, and dip it's toes in reality, the theory holds. Every time." presupposes that our scientific understanding of the universe is complete, which is something no rational scientist is willing to do. The Ancient Greeks did right by writing QED (L.quod erat demostrandum, or "which was to be demostrated") at the end of their proofs. Even Laws in Science are not inviolate.

"That is why, despite claims that 'all' the evidence supports evolution and an old Earth, the evolutionists themselves still call it a theory. While there is ample evidence on the old Earth side, there is much, if not more on the evolutionary side. All most Creationists asks for, is for evolutionists to look at both sides. Because even a suggestion of a Higher Power is indigestible to an evolutionist. A scientist will continue to test his theory, one way or another, until he has found an answer. An evolutionist cannot, because he may find an answer he cannot accept."
The above statement begs for "a Higher Power". Science cannot acquiesce to this request, as the notion of "a Higher Power" cannot be sensed or otherwise be detected by scientific instruments.

So Steve's answer is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstandings and distortions of the truth. I would expect nothing less from a creationist.

Answer 2

I have not heard this particular one before...however, if you mean sedimentary content, that is a different story.

Evolutionists claim an old Earth, because they have to. All the old Earth sciences has happened after Darwin. It follows that if evolution occurred, than there must be an old Earth. While Creationists believe in a young Earth, it does not follow that an old Earth, by itself, excludes Creationism. A position many Catholics hold.

So, back yo your original question. If we know how many tons of erosion sediment is added to the ocean floor every year (which we do), and we know how much sediment is currently in the ocean (which we do)...than it seems that it should be a pretty easy task to figure how long it took to get there...and...and this is key...the land mass above sea level BEFORE erosion began.

Guess what, at those rates...all the land mass above sea level erodes away in some 14m years...so 14m years ago there would be double the land mass of today. But we know there wasn't, by the evolutionists standards. We had inland seas, and mountain ranges and volcanoes were still developing. According to evolutionists there was less land mass 14m years ago. Also, how can we then find fossils less than 14m years old? If they were in the ground, at a level above the 14m year old line...wouldn't they have eroded away?

This same sedimentary tests can be applied to any major river delta..there just ain't millions and millions of years of sediment there.

Look at the Grand Canyon.....how much dirt must have been eroded away to get that big a hole??? And where did it go??? Because there is not any where near that much dirt at the mouth of the Colorado River.



In science, a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has some evidence to support it. A law is a theory that has all the evidence to support it. A theory becomes a law (Law of Gravity, Laws of Entropy, Laws of thermodynamics, Laws of magnetism) when every time you take the theory, and dip it's toes in reality, the theory holds. Every time.

That is why, despite claims that 'all' the evidence supports evolution and an old Earth, the evolutionists themselves still call it a theory. While there is ample evidence on the old Earth side, there is much, if not more on the evolutionary side. All most Creationists asks for, is for evolutionists to look at both sides. Because even a suggestion of a Higher Power is indigestible to an evolutionist. A scientist will continue to test his theory, one way or another, until he has found an answer. An evolutionist cannot, because he may find an answer he cannot accept.

Good luck to you, and keep asking theses kind of ????'s


Listed is one very good article on the sedimentary issue

Answer 3

It isn't. This is a standard point made by creationists, but it collapses under examination. The creationist case is that the sea should be much saltier if it were billions of years old.

The problem with their hypothesis is salt mines. Salt does not form in concentrated deposits unless it is in solution and the liquid evaporates, leaving the salt behind.

There are literally thousands of cubic miles of salt deposits in the earth, remnants of ancient seas which dried up and left their salt behind. See the cathedral in poland that is carved in an underground salt mine, entirely of salt: http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec14/wielicz.htm.

You add all of the salt deposits from mines to the salt in the sea, and you easily have enough for a four billion year old ocean.

Here is an excellent discussion of salt deposit formation in Michigan: http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html

Steve M (below): Nice try. Plausible, if you assume a static planetary crust. But your analysis breaks down with the introduction of plate tectonics, subduction and uplift.You also assume a constant rate of erosion at all places. This isn't the case at all. Erosion is based on rainfall, and a quick visit to Arizona will remind you that there's very little erosion happening there, compared to, say the Cascade mountains.

80 million years ago the great plains were a shallow inland sea. You claim the delta of the mississippi doesn't have enough sediment to account for the erosion. Are you measuring all the way to Minnesota? Because that's where the delta begins.

The appalachian mountains were once higher than the rockies.

The Hamalayas are very recent. The Highest mountain on earth was a coastal plain just 50 million years ago, before the Indian subcontinent slammed into it at the geologically breakneck speed of 2 inches a year.

This "evidence" you claim is attractive at first glance to the scientifically illiterate, but is devoid of substance if you know the most rudimentary things about geology, which you clearly don't.

Answer 4

I thought the salinity of the sea was evidence that the Earth IS billions of years old.

The ocean is salty because of the gradual concentration of dissolved chemicals eroded from the Earth's crust and washed into the sea. Solid and gaseous ejections from volcanoes, suspended particles swept to the ocean from the land by onshore winds, and materials dissolved from sediments deposited on the ocean floor have also contributed. Salinity is increased by evaporation or by freezing of sea ice and it is decreased as a result of rainfall, runoff, or the melting of ice.

**EDIT**
Could I just say to the guy who posted the answersingenesis web link. Surely these figures do not take into account many, many variables that have occured in geological history, such as changes in land masses (eg. Pangea), changes in temperature, the creation and melting of the ice caps, etc., etc.

Answer 5

a minimum of three questionable assumptions are glaring. First is the concept the oceans are as previous because the Earth. that couldn't basically questionable, yet fake below the prevailing geological theories. of route, all those theories call for oceans older than sixty 2 million years, yet i stumble upon it exciting that the poster changed into no longer attentive to the favor to make that argument. second is the concept the hydrologic cycle delivers and receives rid of salt on a similar fee on the instantaneous because it did 1000's of thousands of years in the past. I absolutely do no longer recognize one way or the different, yet neither does the source from which that argument changed into reduce and pasted. third is the concept the hydrologic cycle is the purely mechanism including or eliminating salt. That assumption seems to require that we assume that present day geologic tactics are a lifeless ringer for individuals that befell contained in the previous. it extremely is demonstrably fake. i stumble upon it exciting that the purely valid assumption made contained in the argument changed into brushed off as stupid. The oceans were, of route, initially salt free, having been formed through condensation and precipitation of water vapor contained in the ambience.

Answer 6

Source?

Answer 7

Who says it is?

Answer 8

I found this web site for you. It details it very well.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp