Feedback for the week of March 27, 2006

Reiterating: ok to use sea sodium as evidence for a young world

Query from C.E. to ICR

Hello,

I was browsing through your website when I came across the page that has the list of young earth proofs. One that caught my eye was the Saltiness of the oceans argument. Should this argument still be used? I did some research and I found a letter written by Glen Morton to Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys. In the letter Morton claims that Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys ignore some of the biggest contributors to sodium removal from the oceans. He claims that when these output mechanisms are included in the data the problem balances out. Salt input=salt output therefore the saltiness of the oceans is no longer a problem for evolutionists. This is the letter I found [link deleted per feedback rules]

Is Glen Morton correct? Should creationists still use this as a young earth proof? I would greatly appreciate a response.

God bless,
C.E.

Query from C.E. to AiG

Dear AIG,

I recently read an article on your website entitled “salty seas-evidence for a young earth.” I also read the report written Dr. Austin and Dr. Humphreys which I also found on your website. According to one article I found this information is out of date and no longer accurate. According to [link deleted per feedback rules] written by Glen Morton, Dr. Austin and Humphreys ignore several sodium output processes. According to Morton when these processes are included the dilemma of salt in the oceans is no more because salt input=salt output. I was searched your entire website as well as ICR’s archive and I found nothing directly responding to Morton’s criticism of this argument for a young earth. If the salty oceans argument is flawed why do you still present it on your website?

Thank you in advance,
C.E., USA

Dear C.E.,

I find it deceptive that you would send the same basic question to AiG that you previously sent to ICR last October, especially without telling AiG about my October response to you. I reiterate that response, as it remains pertinent:

I just wanted to write and thank you for all you do for the Kingdom of God and sharing the Truth through Science. I have found Answers in Genesis to be the most helpful source for me when dealing with Atheism and Evolution. I teach a college study on Wednesday evenings that is Apologetics-oriented and we touch on a lot of things like Humanism, Naturalism, Materialism and the like. I also run my own website, [link deleted per feedback rules] in which I deal with Evolution and other crucial matters in the Kingdom. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your consistent approach and I am thrilled that, soon, we will be able to visit your museum. Again, thank you for all you do to further Christ's message and kingdom! Sincerely, Mike Bryant USA

No, Glen Morton is not at all correct on this, and sincere creationists can continue using sea sodium as an evidence for a young world. Morton showed you an early letter in his correspondence with Steve Austin and me, but not our replies. He also did not show you how he terminated the correspondence.

Morton thinks the mineral albite would form permanently on the ocean floor, taking sodium out of seawater. But what happens is this: indeed albite forms in mid-ocean vents and takes sodium out of the high-temperature sea water. But then when the albite gets into cooler water, it decomposes into the mineral chlorite and releases the same amount of sodium back into the sea water. That is why albite (in any significant amounts) is found only at the mid-ocean ridges and nowhere else. So his “albite sink” would change into a “chlorite source”, and the net effect on sodium in the sea would be zero.

That may seem technical to you. So here is a non-technical way you can judge for yourself whether Morton is right or not: find out whether he has published his “albite sink” theory in a peer-reviewed secular geochemistry journal. The foremost one has the Latin title Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Such journals would be overjoyed to publish his theory if it were correct, because it would solve the 75-year-old problem Steve and I pointed out, the great imbalance between ingoing and outgoing sodium. The secular science establishment would probably award Morton the Nobel Prize for it!

Moreover, Morton would be very proud to have his theory published in such a journal and would be sure to mention it prominently on his website. Let me know if you find such a citation there. If you don’t, then you know Morton is blowing smoke at you.

Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics’ and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naiveté of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do. Psalm 1:1 promises a blessing for avoiding such company:

“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!”

Instead, delight in the law of the Lord,
Russ Humphreys
Institute for Creation Research

Return to feedback home.
Send your comment to the web editor.