I recently read an article on the Talk Origins "news group" claiming to refute most young earth arguments I know of. I am a Creationist myself but, I don't have the education to understand all of the science. I suspect the article is full of untruths from I can understand but I don't know.
Any thoughts?
young earth arguments

Don't worry, I don't think many at talkorigins have the education either...

Terry

Can you address some the examples specifically?

With all due respect willis there are rather too many topics, to just pick one at random. I mean suppose it was not in a subject you are familiar with, (guessing - the earths magnetic field), then the explanation from creation or evolution will be difficult to follow.

What is your area of interest in science, or better, follow one of the existing arguments currently running and just join in.

I understand thanks for your input. However, please humor me for minute. What if I asked about a specific one of these 'refutes'?
Say, radiocarbon dating?

OK….Following the link you posted I get this A Close Look at Dr. h*vind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave E. Matson Copyright © 1994-2002, and appears to specifically address The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. h*vind

Like any article in talk origins the argument from the creationist perspective is first repeated, then, the response in lay terms, often interspaced with links to the source material for more in depth reading.

I must admit that I am not a fan of the talk origin news group, and prefer only to use the source data/links contained in their archive.

If you (or anyone else) want to, please point out some of the flaws in the talkorigins.org article from a creationist point of view. I myself think they make quite a good case and I am curious as to what creationists think of this article.

Hello,
I found one argument I found to be questionable. Dave Matson attacks the saltiness of the oceans being a proof for a young earth he says: "Dr. h*vind is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here's what Cook had to say" Then he cites [Cook, 1966, p.73] Who says this cannot be used to prove the age of the earth either way.

"Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist."

Is it being removed as quickly as it is being added? Here is what AIG had to say:
"However, the rate of all of this sodium output is far less than the input. Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 122 million tonnes of sodium leaves the sea every year. The maximum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year."


"Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years.

The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less."
AIG

I'm not sure what the point is. If you have something that you believe in, that they are causing you trouble with, then spend some time at AIG or ICR, and you can probably find answers to your questions. You can ask about here if you wish, but I'm not interested in anything that is said there. What I have read there is generally tripe, and that's all I can say about it.

Terry

What article?

Terry

I have been doing a lot of my own research on the topic I just wanted to hear what other young earthers had to say about it. What exactly are you interested in that is related to a young earth?

Ok Salt it is. As an aside I read that Melvin Cook (creationist) is disagreeing with h*vind (creationist) on the validity of salt in the ocean claim.

However, I think I found the corresponding (1990 The sea's missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, 2: 17-33) article in talk origins LINK(please take a look and see if it correct).



Basically the response is, Austin and Humphreys failed to account for all the mechanisms of salt removal. With two external references:
a. LINK Morton, Glenn R., 1996. Salt in the sea
b. Burton, J. D. and D. Wright, 1981. Sea water and its evolution. In: The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks. London: British Museum, 89-101.

A couple of questions:
a. Have Austin and Humphreys responded in any way to the criticisms of their work?
b. Did Austin and Humphreys submit their article for peer review, as from the Talk origins site it appears that it was only presented at the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh . If submitted for peer review there should be a paper trail in scientific circles where the ideas are discussed in detail.

I found this in the response from Glenn Morton "I will examine the salt balance of the Miocene epoch. I do this because
it is long enough for an imbalance to be found, I have the data for this
epoch and it will push your 62 Myr age of the oceans back to 80 Myr..."
If Austin and Humphreys are wrong and Morton is right the age of ocean is only pushed back approximately 20 myr. The problem is still present, evolution would require much more than 80 myr.

As I said, I'm not interested in anything that talkorigins has to say. I think Fred's "evo-babbler" alert pretty much sums it up.



You can read the rest here.... Evo-babbler

Terry

The quote is contained in the link I posted previously in an exchange on the 8 Apr 96 LINK, part of the quote refers to a revise level of salt by Austin and Humphreys by letter, of

the final part to the excange that I can find is

Two things stick out:

A. Austin and Humphreys did revise their inisial calculations, bringing the total to something more reasonable, especially when added to the other areas not addressed in the same link.
B. Austin and Humphreys, 60/80Mya figure hardly supports YEC, with a figure like that, the first thing I would be looking at is "have I covered all the bases" because it lies between evolution and creation and supports neither.

Sounds like a good science experiment to me. I also found the same info at the AIG website. Sorry for the confusion.



It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 80 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years. The point is not to directly prove a young earth but, to point out that there are certain limits in place that do not allow for billions of years. 6,000 years fits fine in that timespan but the problem becomes bigger for evolution. The ocean obviously has to be much older and many sea creatures have been dated older than 80 million years.

If the rivers, which are much smaller than the oceans, were removing salts as much as what cook says. They would be so salty, everything in them would die. But most rivers have a brackish point, and a fresh water point, as they go more inland. Which proves that the salt from the ocean is not flowing into our rivers. Because the size difference would flood the rivers with salt.

Example:

Brackish=transition point of salt water to fresh water (not sure of the spelling of the word).

Ocean-------mouth of river---------brackish point-----------fresh water point.
Moving more inland ----------->

So for the river to to take on this all this salt, but not affect it more inland, would mean the salt gets dumped at the mouth of the river for some reason. Which would also men that the bottom of the river, at the mouth, would be nearly pure salt. And, it would have to be shown why the salt separates from the water at the mouth of the river.

None of this "River eating the sea salt" idea can be proven. And I have seen no evidence either.

Here's how it would have to look:

Ocean salt-------Mouth of river=salt falling to river bottom------brackish------fresh water.
Moving more inland ---------->


Added: Opps, I miss read the meaning. Well anyway, it makes a point, case anyone wants to try and say that the river removes the salt.

The sea salt issue is only an issue if it is assumed that nog salt is removed from the oceans. This is not the case.

It has been shown that huge quantities of salt are removed from the sea along tectonically active plate boundaries, like mid-ocean ridges. Along these ridges, sea water is 'sucked up' during the formation of new ocean floor. This ocean floor, basalt, contains a mineral called K-feldspar. This feldspar reacts with the ocean water in a process called albitization. This basically means that sodium from the ocean water reacts with feldspar to form albite. Similar removal mechanisms exist for other ions (like SO4(2-) that gets airborne).
The other large removal mechanism is the formation of so-called evaporites. Evaporites form during a period in which the influx of seawater is not constant in a region, allowing evaporation of a large part of the water, raising the salinity of the water untill the sodium exsolves. Evaporite formations can become up to several kilometers thick.

By the way, there is no global evaporite formation, as one would expect after a global flood followed by evaporation of the flood water. Furthermore, the evaporites are found in stratigraphically very different levels.

You are correct, had Austin and Humphreys calculations been accurate a figure giving 62M years, would be a problem for an old earth. There would then be an additional method of confirmation because this implies that the salinity of the oceans should still be increasing at that rate. This could be measured today. I.e.

Austin and Humphreys: Salt in, is greater than, salt out, measure that rate to give age.
Mainstream: Salt in = salt out, no parameter to measure.



An excellent example of how evolution (or more accurately ‘old earth’) can be falsified. Indeed it was a good science experiment.





edit/P.S. returning to the topic in your first post, you stated

Well admittedly the sample size is small (one) but ocean salinity seems to me to have been handled accurately, yes?

Qualifier - the ‘Talk Origins news group’ is not the source, it is a blunt (ok sometimes very rude) and rather unfriendly forum. I would be interested in your opinion on the Talk Origins archive.

I suppose the data has been handled accurately but, the root of the issue is never solved. The point is to put a limit on the age of the earth. Whether that be 62 or 80 million is not the issue. The numbers have been adjusted but the problem remains.


They are there to defend evolution at all cost.

I don’t think you have read the article closely enough, when Austin and Humphreys revised figures are added to the missing methods of salt removal, the ‘problem disappears’. Given that Austin and Humphreys have been more or less silent on the matter for nearly 10 years, I would think the matter settled, I mean it’s not as if the methods of salt removal are in question.




“At all costs” is rather broad don't you think? That would include things like misrepresentation, lying, falsification of data, from the scientists who produced the original material.

Do you think what they have to say is true?

I don't agree with them at all and I think a lot of their science is contestable. Some of what they say I honestly don't know about and cannot really comment. However, it seems that they assume evolution is true and then based on that claim that creationists arguments are false which is circularity at its best.


Correct me if I am wrong but, with the revised numbers the age goes back only to 80 million. Is that correct? While that is not the nail in the coffin it certainly limits the age of the earth.

Both AIG and ICR are still using the argument which both Humphreys and Austin are affiliated with.


I don't mean to say that they are intentionally lying I think their purpose is to refute creation. The scientists who originally produced the data are coming from the evolutionary world view which means everything they produced will fit right in with that thinking.

You must then add the missing mechanisms of salt removal to the revised Austin and Humphreys figures, then you have Salt in = salt out.




That doesn’t surprise me, perhaps you should ask them why their article has not been updated, yes?




But the scientist come from all walks of life, and old earth, and evolution implications, crosses many disciplines in science. Plus science has an objective to test the unusual, to ensure that all evidence is put through the ringer. The current situation in the USA can hardly have gone unnoticed by even the most closeted scientist, do you not think that they have perhaps said, “hang on, wait a bit, perhaps there is something to this YEC?” the reality of it is some of the evidences against evolution are so absurd that real scientist don’t bother to address them in the public forum, it is left to the popularisers of science, to create the database to reference the mass of evolutionary evidence and place it in easy accessible web sites.

The recent court cases (e.g. Dover) I feel will tend to bring this situation to the for, and I expect a bit of a scientific backlash, should ID, or YEC push much harder.

Edit: Fixed the quote problems-Admin3... You had two /quote back to back. Confuses forum program when you do that, and it won't quote anything.

I've been looking at the young earth/flood erosion argument as well as the talkorigins proposed explanations see bottom left:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/h*vind/howgood.html

I think (despite talkorigins claims) that this is an area that creationists can still hold a strong easy to understand argument.

The erosion arguments involve:
1. Total continental erosion:

"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago."
Dott, R. H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, New York.

see also http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/ages.asp http://www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm)
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

2. Paraconfomity erosion
"At a 10-million-year paraconformity gap we would expect an average of about 300 m (1000 ft) of removal of the underlayer; but we usually see nothing to suggest that the missing layers were ever present." Roth

http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf

(see page 3.)


I hope to shortly provide reasons why the talkorigins explanations do not solve the problem.