There is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[SavedByTheLord]

There is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be many 10s of millions of years old.

Here are links that describe this.

Salty seas

The Oceans Point to a Young Earth

 

[sayak83]

There is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be many 10s of millions of years old.

Here are links that describe this.

Salty seas

The Oceans Point to a Young Earth

Long rebutted. Salt accumulation and salt deposition in oceans are balanced
CD221.1: Amount of dissolved sodium in oceans

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be many 10s of millions of years old.

Here are links that describe this.

Salty seas

The Oceans Point to a Young Earth

All that is flawed because it dosent address the evaporation and condensation of ocean water and fresh water cycles that happen to affect salt levels in the ocean.

Climate changes also affect the salinity as well.

A new study of ocean salinity finds substantial amplification of the global water cycle

Water and its movements within or between atmosphere, land and ocean defines the global water cycle and is central to the climate system. Almost all weather and climate phenomena are in some way tied to the water cycle. Examples include extreme rainfall during thunderstorms, hurricanes and...

phys.org

Educate. It's always a fascinating read.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

All that is flawed because it dosent address the evaporation and condensation of ocean water and fresh water cycles that happen to affect salt levels in the ocean.

Climate changes also affect the salinity as well.

A new study of ocean salinity finds substantial amplification of the global water cycle

Water and its movements within or between atmosphere, land and ocean defines the global water cycle and is central to the climate system. Almost all weather and climate phenomena are in some way tied to the water cycle. Examples include extreme rainfall during thunderstorms, hurricanes and...

phys.org

Educate. It's always a fascinating read.

But that article proves a young earth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But that article proves a young earth.

No. It dosent. It does show saltinity change is active and is influenced by human activity it has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

Salinity has increased, not decreased.

Snippet....

"
This metric provides a simple but powerful means of synthesizing the observed salinity pattern changes," said Nicolas Gruber, a coauthor of this study from ETH. "We show that the zero-to-2000-meter salinity pattern has amplified by 1.6% and surface salinity has amplified by 7.5%. We also show that this increase is due to human influence, and this anthropogenic signal has exceeded the natural background variability."

 

[Altfish]

Oh dear that nasty science comes and bites Creationism #793 on the butt

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh dear that nasty science comes and bites Creationism #793 on the butt

Actually salinity isn't exactly an exact science.

One way of dating the ocean accurately is actually made through carbon dating methods as per the science journal Nature, here...

"One neat tool for aging the sea is radiocarbon, or 14C dating. This radioactive element is created naturally in the atmosphere by solar radiation, and makes up a small percentage of all of the carbon on Earth (the rest is composed of stable forms of the element: 12C and 13C). Carbon-containing compounds like atmospheric CO2 that contain "fresh" radiocarbon can dissolve in ocean waters in contact with the air. Those surface waters would then have the same amount of radiocarbon as the atmosphere - but when they sink, the radioactive carbon begins to decay at a set rate".

and also salinity levels are made as for how long the water in the ocean has been out of contact with the atmosphere.

Here....

By measuring the amount of remaining radiocarbon in ocean waters at different depths and different places around the world, we know that the deep Pacific holds the ocean's oldest waters, which have been out of contact with the atmosphere for about 1000 years before they mix to the surface again.

How old is the ocean? | Saltwater Science

People get pretty excited about 'special' water. From beer brewed with 25,000 year-old Canadian ice, to various pricey bottled waters shipped all over the planet, and a general aversion to waste-water recycling, we seem to forget that all of the water on Earth came from the same place and just...

www.nature.com

It's really sad on how a mind on religion is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. It dosent. It does show saltinity change is active and is influenced by human activity it has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

Salinity has increased, not decreased.

Snippet....

"
This metric provides a simple but powerful means of synthesizing the observed salinity pattern changes," said Nicolas Gruber, a coauthor of this study from ETH. "We show that the zero-to-2000-meter salinity pattern has amplified by 1.6% and surface salinity has amplified by 7.5%. We also show that this increase is due to human influence, and this anthropogenic signal has exceeded the natural background variability."

And that shows that there is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be very many 10s of millions of years old.

 

[HonestJoe]

There is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be many 10s of millions of years old.

Your first link claims a maximum possible age of 62 million years (which is still tens of million) and that makes a whole load of assumptions, primarily that the nature of the oceans and the processes acting on them have been constant throughout the history of the Earth.

Lets be honest here, your sources have a pre-defined conclusion and so will present any "evidence" and claims to try to support that rather than looking at all the actual evidence in the round and reaching valid conclusions (which can and do include elements of "We don't know (yet)").

Nobody outside the creationists have an unshakable faith in an exact age of the Earth, and all of the different evidence has given a relatively wide range of dates for the formation of the planet and the various key stages that followed. Those date ranges can be (and have been) reconsidered and adjusted where new evidence comes to light, and will continue to be in the future. Nothing you're presenting is able (or intended) to make any real contribution to that though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And that shows that there is not enough salt in the oceans for the oceans to be very many 10s of millions of years old.

That's not how the age of the oceans are determined. It's the water that has been out of contact with the atmosphere that's being tested and is also determined by employing 14c dating according to the real science journal Nature.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That's not how the age of the oceans are determined. It's the water that has been out of contact with the atmosphere that's being tested and is also determined by employing 14c dating according to the real science journal Nature.

So, the salt content does limit the age as the op states.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, the salt content does limit the age as the op states.

According to the science journal Nature, the ocean water is about 4 billion years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that article proves a young earth.

No, it does not. Just as there are natural mechanisms that transport salt into the ocean, there are also natural mechanisms that take salt out of the water.

Why didn't you read the article in the first response to you? You lost right there.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it does not. Just as there are natural mechanisms that transport salt into the ocean, there are also natural mechanisms that take salt out of the water.

Why didn't you read the article in the first response to you? You lost right there.

The calculations consider both input and output to the oceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The calculations consider both input and output to the oceans.

No, the link showed how the output calculations were wrong.

Here is what you should be asking yourself:

If there science is valid why don't they write an article that could pass peer review and try to get it published? You never see creation "scientists" dealing with the refutations of their work. They just pretend that they do not exist and move on to their next lie.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, the link showed how the output calculations were wrong.

Here is what you should be asking yourself:

If there science is valid why don't they write an article that could pass peer review and try to get it published? You never see creation "scientists" dealing with the refutations of their work. They just pretend that they do not exist and move on to their next lie.

The rigged peer review system is not scientific.

 

[Sargonski]

The rigged peer review system is not scientific.

In some cases this is correct .. but not in the case of salt in the Oceans friend .. and since you are not knowlegeable enough about science to assess whether or nor something is scientific ... you should not be making defacto claims on the subject ..

For Example - your challenge to prove something without assumtions -- blows up all science .. and is completely unscientific .. the reverse in fact , it is anti-Science - anti-Logic and Reason, which carries over into beliefs. How can one be sure of the path to salvation when based on false belief ? Have you not heard "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" ?

My friend it is not the mistake that is the problem .. but lack of correction .. and I hope we have read Proverbs on this account. For what purpose was man given a brain if not to learn ? - but, this path of learning is blocked by lack of correction .. the Path to the Truth - the way, and the light is blocked to those who can not understand their own folly don't you agree ?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In some cases this is correct .. but not in the case of salt in the Oceans friend .. and since you are not knowlegeable enough about science to assess whether or nor something is scientific ... you should not be making defacto claims on the subject ..

For Example - your challenge to prove something without assumtions -- blows up all science .. and is completely unscientific .. the reverse in fact , it is anti-Science - anti-Logic and Reason, which carries over into beliefs. How can one be sure of the path to salvation when based on false belief ? Have you not heard "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" ?

My friend it is not the mistake that is the problem .. but lack of correction .. and I hope we have read Proverbs on this account. For what purpose was man given a brain if not to learn ? - but, this path of learning is blocked by lack of correction .. the Path to the Truth - the way, and the light is blocked to those who can not understand their own folly don't you agree ?

I am not blowing up all science just the false sciences of evolution and billions of years, and all the other false teachings of that religion.

 

[Sargonski]

I am not blowing up all science just the false sciences of evolution and billions of years, and all the other false teachings of that religion.

Lack of recognition of the consequences of your actions leads to lack of correction .. leads to a foundation based on falsehood .. which is not the Path of Truth .. not the reason God gave mankind a brain.

Claiming Proof is required without assumption .. blows up all science ? as there is no science without assumption .. which part do you not understand ? the Science does not exist without assumption part .. or the Science does not exist without assumption part..

Thus .. to say "Prove something in Science without Assumption" .. is a statement void of logic and rational thought .. and despite numerous attmpts at correction .. the Patient does not take in the information .. thus resulting in a blockage .. from the Path of Truth .. the way and the light .. veering thus down the dark path of the decepticon.

Did you think Ha Satan was going to show up with horns and a red cape friend ? .. brother Martin .. you shall know them by their Fruit.. says Lord Jesus in Scripture.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am not blowing up all science just the false sciences of evolution and billions of years, and all the other false teachings of that religion.

Is gravity a religion too?