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

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rigged peer review system is not scientific.

How to recognize pseudo-scientists...

- they never actually publish their ideas in appropriate channels
- they never even attempt to do so
- they only "publish" within their own echo-room / non-scientific circles
- they ignore any and all rebutals and / or handwave them away
- when asked why they don't publish in appropriate channels, they invoke some kind of conspiracy for which, off course, zero evidence is provided


You, and your sources, cover all points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The rigged peer review system is not scientific.

What is your evidence that it is rigged? And isn't it extremely hypocritical to use the results of peer review while you den it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What is your evidence that it is rigged? And isn't it extremely hypocritical to use the results of peer review while you den it?

It happens all the time.
But just read Gentry’s book for some examplea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happens all the time.
But just read Gentry’s book for some examplea.

Sure, I will read it. But you need to pay me first.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sure, I will read it. But you need to pay me first.

you should pay everyone who has had to read all the nonsense from evolution and billions of years stuff .

 

[Subduction Zone]

you should pay everyone who has had to read all the nonsense from evolution and billions of years stuff .

You see, even you know that you are wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You see, even you know that you are wrong.

Bizarre.
What do evolutionists quote very unscientific dates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bizarre.
What do evolutionists quote very unscientific dates?

We never do that. The problem is that you don't know what "science" is in the first place. Are you willing to learn?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We never do that. The problem is that you don't know what "science" is in the first place. Are you willing to learn?

Of course they do it all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they do it all the time.

What? That was not an answer to my question. Are you willing to learn the basics of science?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What? That was not an answer to my question. Are you willing to learn the basics of science?

They do .
And that is a big problem.

 

[wellwisher]

The salt content of the oceans should be connected to the amount of soluble minerals and ions, that the atmospheric and surface water of the earth, dissolved, forming the oceans. One of the most common crustal minerals is Felspar, which contains sodium and potassium common to the oceans. However, as Felspar, these cations are tied up in the mineral matrix and are not very soluble in surface water; granite.

The question becomes how did the water solubilize these locked up minerals to get the current ocean concentrations? One answer is hydrothermal water, or water above its critical point; very high pressure and temperature. At supercritical conditions, water becomes a dense fluid, that is neither gas nor a liquid, but is as dense as a liquid, but acts more like a gas. This phase of water is very aggressive to most minerals and could break down felspar, silicates; beach sand, and other minerals. This suggests supercritical mantle water, laden with dissolved minerals, working its way to the surface with volcanic activity, was feeding the oceans, while dissolving the crust.

The Bible says that at one time water used to rise as a mist from the land.

Genesis 2:6-8 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground.

This is reasonable, since the surface water only scenario would have to explain how all the soluble minerals somehow ended up on the surface of the earth, making it easier to dissolve. There is more flexibility and less assumptions, if we allow the water to become supercritical to dissolve out causal minerals, and bring these to the surface, with the supercritical water.

The mist rises to the surface and then into the atmosphere, cooling as torrential rains, from the upper atmosphere. These would be the most intense storms in hisotry. The cooling rains would then cools the bubbling and steamy oceans. This caused the super heated oceans to cool and precipitate minerals, until the finally, the modern oceans appear ripe for life to appear. The Miller experiment simulation may be appropriate with this oceans forming scenario and the very active atmosphere that would include dissolved gases.

One wild card is the moon. If we assume the earth and moon were both forming and only the earth had water for amplified cooling, the hot and molten moon would have inhibited cooling, as a revolved around the earth; moving hot zone. This might tell as about the cooling patterns and the forming ocean currents.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

OK, I perused one of these creationist links.
It ranges from wrong science to no science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

OK, I perused one of these creationist links.
It ranges from wrong science to no science.

Of course I have proven all evolution and billions of years false.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course I have proven all evolution and billions of years false.

Of course you believe you have.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But that article proves a young earth.

The article proves nothing at all. It simply offers an weak argument based on a false interpretation of the facts.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The article proves nothing at all. It simply offers a weak argument based on a false interpretation of the facts.

The discrepancy between the facts and evolutionary theories is irreconcilable.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The discrepancy between the facts and evolutionary theories is irreconcilable.

The problem with your theory is that what are presented as facts, are not those used in any argument to support evolution, but are specious untrue statements so can neither support nor controvert evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The discrepancy between the facts and evolutionary theories is irreconcilable.

You have never shown any discrepancies. To do so you need to do much better than to link PRATT's from known lying sources.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course I have proven all evolution and billions of years false.

Can you describe all the other areas of your life where you are equally delusional?