Can I get a Big Mac please?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Tye Porter
New member
Happy Birthday, Pastor Bob!
Bad Chemistry
Bad Chemistry
Starting at 46 mins 55 secs into the recorded broadcast, Bob says the following:
The problem is, when an apparently simple idea, such as this is proposed, science requires that it be validated. Some simple ideas, in spite apparently of being obviously true, are found to be more complex than originally believed. The idea that Bob talks about of the concentration of minerals in the oceans was investigated more than a century ago, and has been refined several times since.
Here is what Bob omitted saying. If we look at the concentration of aluminum in the oceans, it should take only a century to reach the currently measured levels. But no one, including those holding to a belief in the literal creation account in Genesis can accept the oceans being only 100 years old. If we look at the concentration of iron, we find that it must have started flowing into the oceans about a century and a half ago. Expanding our measurements to lot of other minerals, we find the age of the ocean varies for almost every different mineral. At least 8 minerals have too low of a concentration to fit with the timetable in the Genesis creation, and a couple dozen minerals would need tens of thousand or even millions of years to reach their current concentrations.
Something is seriously wrong here. Bob is right, in that the concentration of the minerals in the ocean is too low to account for billions of years of influx. But if we are to adopt his as a valid way to measure the age of the earth, we have to explain why the difference in dates depending on which minerals we are measuring. The creation 6000 years ago is disproved as shown by the aluminum and iron concentrations just as firmly as a billions of years old creation.
In fact the simplistic view that Bob is basing his dating on ignores some very important factors. One important one is that minerals don’t just flow into the oceans and stay there. There are mechanisms in nature that remove minerals from the oceans as well. Some minerals are removed very slowly, others very quickly. Without a clear understanding of the rates at which minerals are removed, dating conclusions based on the rate at which they are added are meaningless.
From a scientific perspective, quantifying the rate of mineral removal can be difficult. The chemistry of the deeper parts of the oceans are still poorly understood, and there are an immense variety of factors that affect chemical balances in the ocean - such as organic life, subterranean venting, precipitation, and so on. The measured concentrations of ocean minerals is within the uncertainty in the rates of influx and extraction, even assuming a billions of years old earth. Bob’s argument is one that was discredited many decades ago.
Bad Chemistry
Starting at 46 mins 55 secs into the recorded broadcast, Bob says the following:
This idea of measuring the concentrations of mineral oceans is an excellent one. It is not difficult to measure the amount of minerals continuously being carried to the oceans in the rivers. We also know the volume of water in the oceans, so the calculations should not be very hard. Pastor Enyart declares that the mineral levels in the oceans is much too small if the runoff into the oceans has gone on for billions of years, and that stands as proof that the earth is not billions of years old.
The problem is, when an apparently simple idea, such as this is proposed, science requires that it be validated. Some simple ideas, in spite apparently of being obviously true, are found to be more complex than originally believed. The idea that Bob talks about of the concentration of minerals in the oceans was investigated more than a century ago, and has been refined several times since.
Here is what Bob omitted saying. If we look at the concentration of aluminum in the oceans, it should take only a century to reach the currently measured levels. But no one, including those holding to a belief in the literal creation account in Genesis can accept the oceans being only 100 years old. If we look at the concentration of iron, we find that it must have started flowing into the oceans about a century and a half ago. Expanding our measurements to lot of other minerals, we find the age of the ocean varies for almost every different mineral. At least 8 minerals have too low of a concentration to fit with the timetable in the Genesis creation, and a couple dozen minerals would need tens of thousand or even millions of years to reach their current concentrations.
Something is seriously wrong here. Bob is right, in that the concentration of the minerals in the ocean is too low to account for billions of years of influx. But if we are to adopt his as a valid way to measure the age of the earth, we have to explain why the difference in dates depending on which minerals we are measuring. The creation 6000 years ago is disproved as shown by the aluminum and iron concentrations just as firmly as a billions of years old creation.
In fact the simplistic view that Bob is basing his dating on ignores some very important factors. One important one is that minerals don’t just flow into the oceans and stay there. There are mechanisms in nature that remove minerals from the oceans as well. Some minerals are removed very slowly, others very quickly. Without a clear understanding of the rates at which minerals are removed, dating conclusions based on the rate at which they are added are meaningless.
From a scientific perspective, quantifying the rate of mineral removal can be difficult. The chemistry of the deeper parts of the oceans are still poorly understood, and there are an immense variety of factors that affect chemical balances in the ocean - such as organic life, subterranean venting, precipitation, and so on. The measured concentrations of ocean minerals is within the uncertainty in the rates of influx and extraction, even assuming a billions of years old earth. Bob’s argument is one that was discredited many decades ago.
The obvious answer is that he is not concerned with real science or truth, he is only concerned with giving creationists something to make them feel better about their beliefs. My view is that neither creationism nor evolution should be connected in any way to Christianity. Of course, my view is not a popular one. There are many who have placed creationism as the focal point of their faith.
Hey ThePhy CLICK HERE.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
Just Tom said:
:thumb:
- Status