At 08:37 PM 9/27/98 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>
>Kevin O'Brien wrote Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:53:27 -0600
>
>>salt does not precipitate, it crystallizes. What this means is that even
>>if a supersaturated solution could exist long enough to produce
>>crystallized salt, only the amount necessary to bring the solution to
>>saturation levels would crystallize out. The rest of the salt would remain
>>in solution
>
>That is in interesting problem. According to calculations I have seen, the
>present influx of Na+ from rivers into the ocean would provide the amount
>of Na+ observed in the oceans in about 50 million years (less time if the
>rate of influx was ever faster, or if there were sources besides the
>rivers, or if the oceans started off with some Na+ already). If there is
>no way it could ever crystalize when the whole is not at saturation levels,
>maybe the oceans have not been receiving salt for very long.
I had a long letter exchange with Steve Austin about the salt problem.
Salt is removed from the sea at the mid-oceanic ridge. This mechanism is
underestimated by Austin and I wrote him a letter last year which he never
responded to. It solves the salt in the sea problem. But inspite of that
I bet the YECs continue to teach that the salt in the sea is a problem.
see http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/salt.htm
The reason that I feel that they will continue teaching the same thing is
that is what they did with the canopy. In 1979 I published an article in
the Creation Research Soc. Quarterly which calculated the surface
temperature of the earth with a canopy. I calculated that the temperature
would have been above the boiling point of water. I got lots of flack for
that article, but in 1990 two men from the Institute for Creation Research
wrote:
"Morton(1979) was apparently the first to conclude that the canopy would
have made the earth's surface too hot for human habitation (Kofahl did not
calculate surface temperatures). Morton made a number of assumptions that
greatly simplified the problem, and his surface temperatures are much
higher than ours, but the general conclusion is the same: Life as we know
it would not have been possible under a conopy of 1013 mb (1 atm), nor even
with a canopy of only 50 mb. When other features such as clouds are added
to the model, this conclusion could be modified greatly, however.
Preliminary explorations with cloud layers at the top of the 50 mb canopy
have shown significant radiation effects which lower the surface
temperature drastically. Unfortunately, while the surface temperature
decreases when clouds are added, so does the temperature of the canopy,
reducing its stability." ~ David E. Rush and Larry Vardiman, "Pre-Flood
Vapor Canopy Radiative Temperature Profiles," in Robert E. Walsh, and
Christopher L. Brooks, Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), p. 238
The second half of this paragraph means that if they put clouds in the
model (as I tried also) the canopy immediately collapses and causes the flood!
Yet ICR continues to this day, in spite of their own expert's opinions, to
teach the canopy. Is this moral?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm