Page 132 of 132 FirstFirst ... 3282122131132
Results 4,586 to 4,599 of 4599

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #4586
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Re-read my post #4551.

    What's the 'some amount'?

    It turns out to be (am I surprised?) about the same as the rate of salt deposition - you've therefore got a near 'steady state' going on, which makes using ocean salinity as a clock useless for anything other than determining a minimum age. Still in the millions, mind you. Not a handful of thousands. Easy readable article here.

    I don't know how your mind works, Frank!, but on writing my stuff yesterday, I got thinking about tectonics - picturing scum bobbing about the surface of a hot crucible, and how, in our multi-continental times, we have more 'edges', more subduction going on than in Pangaea days. Was the Panthalassan ocean therefore saltier than ours? Do variable salinities mechanically change the rates of subduction? Etc.

    You may, on this thread, be trying to convince people (or perhaps just yourself) that YEC is a valid system, able to withstand scrutiny (it isn't), but inadvertently you're sending me off in Real World, real science directions that I may not have otherwise wandered down.

    For which, faint praise indeed, I thank you - and the other contributors who've opened my mind to some genetics , geology and evolutionary articles that have been fascinating.
    i would be strongly interested how you can be so positive

    re the salty oceans:

    still only limited fossicing around - but i can find no recent YEC comments on the subduction question (unless i skimmed over it)

    i tried for the Glenn Morton site but couldnt find it (but there was a reference that he had taken it down) . i am particularly interested in his discussions with Humphreys - what were the two 'evidences' the he says H. didnt address

  2. #4587
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,088

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I can find no recent YEC comments on the subduction question (unless i skimmed over it)

    i tried for the Glenn Morton site but couldnt find it (but there was a reference that he had taken it down) . i am particularly interested in his discussions with Humphreys - what were the two 'evidences' the he says H. didnt address
    Perhaps that is because YEthers ignore stuff that does not fit their preconceptions. Sort of negative cherry-picking?

    Find anything on the Laws of Physics and the Global Flood yet?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #4588
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    3−4.51014 g yr−1 I found in two minutes of Google.

    ...call it about a million cubic metres a day. (Which incidentally means an 'all the oceans' of water has been subducted since the Earth began.

    Andy
    Andy,

    i wonder if you still have the reference for this - or a lead?

    none of my googling or checking the usual suspects has turned up anything concrete like this

    regards,

    frank

  4. #4589
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,088

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Andy,

    i wonder if you still have the reference for this - or a lead?

    none of my googling or checking the usual suspects has turned up anything concrete like this

    regards,

    frank
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394256/
    model results suggest long-term net water influx from the surface to the mantle, which is estimated to be 3−4.51014 g yr−1 on the billion years time scale.
    Just paste the bolded text into the search window and bingo. Simples.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #4590
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    (cant help my self - more back-of-the-envelope simple maths...)

    i want to get a handle on whether to oceanic salt content really is in "Steady State" as asserted earlier.

    no reference i looked at appeared to say - but Humphreys and Austin assert that there is a 27% excess entering the ocean yearly.

    they make no mention of subducted water which has been advance here as negating that excess.

    from the info presented on this thread i want to have a stab at working it out

    .................................................. .................................................. .................

    Subducted water is given as roughly a million cu.m. per day

    thats 365 mil. cu.m. / yr.

    There is 2.2 lbs. of salt per. cu ft.

    1cu.ft = 28 litres

    ie 36 kg / cu.m.

    So, salt removed by subduction = 36 * 365 mil. kg. / yr.

    or 1.3 x 10 ^10 kg. / yr

    Salt increased per yr. = 3 x 10^11 {From Humphreys and Austin (?)}

    So, subduction only removes 5% of the increased salt added each year -

    - not likely to result in a "Steady State" salt balance in the oceans if the above is correct (fingers crossed)

    Cheers,

    Frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 08-14-2018 at 06:22 AM.

  6. #4591
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    My take on the saltiness of the oceans as evidence one way or the other for deeptime or YE scenarios is that there are too many uncertainties and unknowns to make a clear call one way or 'tother - but certainly the billions of years people have nothing to be complacent about, and cannot dismiss the science of the Young Earthers out of hand.

  7. #4592
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,088

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I would suggest that Humphereys and Austen are wrong. Where did they get their data?
    http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/ag..._salinity.html
    1. Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.

      A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

    References:


    1. Morton, Glenn R., 1996. Salt in the sea. http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

    This
    THE SEA'S MISSING SALT:
    A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS
    Steven A. Austin, Ph.D
    D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.1
    Institute for Creation Research Santee, California 92071
    makes no mention of subduction taking sea salt out of the system. I suspect that the rest of the work is equally flawed as shown by G L Morton.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 08-14-2018 at 07:48 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #4593
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,088

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank! Are you noticing a pattern here yet. Every paper Humphreys is involved in turns out to be flawed.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  9. #4594
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - not likely to result in a "Steady State" salt balance in the oceans if the above is correct (fingers crossed)
    From Nick's link, Frank, just in case you don't follow it:

    A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.
    (My emphasis.)

    It's worth looking into Morton's work. You'll see YECs repeatably trying to attempt to discredit it, almost as if they have an agenda to promote, and don't much care about science.

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  10. #4595
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    . . . almost as if they have an agenda to promote, and don't much care about science.
    Really? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  11. #4596
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Andy,
    I have several times tried to get on to Glenn Morton whthout success - would you mi d reposting the one you have please?

    (And as an aside, IIRC , Humpbreys and Austen 2006 (?) Have approx 3 x 10 to the 11 kg./ yr as the iincrease - which is, they estimate 27% of total added per year. - so approx 3x Mortons 1996 estimate.

    But i think neither considered subduction removal which seems to be an issue that subseauently emerved....

    But, as i said, i think ocean saltiness to be too fraught to call. with any confidence..... and am a little surprised the creationists still run with it.

    Rgds,

    Frank

  12. #4597
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Really? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
    Careful, Keith - still no-one has put forward a viable realistic mechanism to explain the great sedimentary formations we see on all the continents - only the surging of the oceans "to and fro across the continents" provides a realistic scientifically validated explanation.

  13. #4598
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Sorry, Frank, you're simply wrong about that. Given enough time (which your literal reading of the bible refuses to admit) geology explains it quite admirably.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #4599
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,088

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    From Nick's link, Frank, just in case you don't follow it:



    Andy
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Andy,
    I have several times tried to get on to Glenn Morton whthout success - would you mi d reposting the one you have please?



    Frank
    Andy, you must be psychic.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •