From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Oct 8 17:33:35 EDT 1994
Article: 79847 of talk.origins
From: email@example.com (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: Nickel Concentration Dates Ocean To 9000 Years
Date: 8 Oct 1994 17:28:02 -0400
Organization: Under construction
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jack Nadelman 906 wrote:
>Measure the concentration of nickel in the ocean water at two points
>in time to find the rate at which rivers cause an increase. The rate
>is not necessarily a constant, but we are able to use it to
>approximate when the concentration was zero, and we find that it is
>about 9,000 years(1) ago. Zero nickel in the ocean and the approximate
>age of the ocean (and earth).
>(1) Henry M Morris, "Scientific Creationism," 1974, p. 153.
Let's see, then, if we can corroborate that age estimate by using other
elements in the ocean. I'm working from _Tracers In the Sea_ by
Wallace Broecker and T.-H. Peng, 1982, Eldigio Press (pp. 26-27)
Element Residence Time (years)
Nickel 8.2E3 -> Morris's Figure is approximately correct for Ni.
Several elements are not listed with atomic number less than 35 (bromine)
due to the inaccuracy of the measurements, or to the irrelevance of the
question (hydrogen and oxygen, for example). I quit here. The remainder
of the table ranges from 8.1E1 (Lead) to 8.2E5 (Molybdenum).
The range for the elements for which we have sufficiently accurate
source functions to make an estimate is an age of the ocean anywhere from
53 years (Iron) to 130 Million years (Bromine).
As the method give an answer which varies by over a factor of a million,
we must question its premises:
1) That the initial concentration of elements was zero.
2) That the rate of addition was constant.
3) That there are no mechanisms for removal.
Further, since a single element (Ni) was chosen for the Morris method,
we must ask why that particular element was chosen. It is not the
most common or best known element (best in terms of its source rate).
Nor is it particularly immune to being affected by removal mechanisms.
Now, since there is a clear contradiction of the method both
with itself (the factor of a million variation in age estimates),
and with experience (dating the earth to be younger than many of
its occupants if you use Iron), it is time for the method
to be either retracted, or improved.
Bob Grumbine email@example.com
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Return to main Ediacaran page
Return bobg main page
Send message to Robert Grumbine