Re: Parker & Morris?

mortongr@flash.net
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:38:50 +0000

At 03:57 PM 11/23/1999 CT, jeff witters wrote:
>Hello.
>
>Does anyone know about a chart (p.288) of "What is Creation
>Science" by Henry Morris and Gary Parker? I do not have the
>book, but a chart showing wildly divergent dates for the age
>of the earth is apparently used to show that various dating
>methods do not produce consensus. I have some ideas, but
>rather than speculating about why the chart is wrong I thought
>it might be more helpful to hear from anyone who is familiar
>with this (or similar material from Morris or Parker).

Hi Jeff, The chart is a sham. Most of the dates which are 'influx of
(element whatever) into the oceans' are resident times for the minerals,
not ages of the ocean. What I mean by this is that this is the time it
takes for the rivers to fill the oceans up with these elements. Such times
can only be constraints on the age of the oceans IF and ONLY IF, none of
the minerals leave the ocean through sedimentation/chemical reaction. This
is from my book F^3

" In 1974, and again in 1987, Henry Morris published a list which
includes values calculating the age of the oceans by the influx of various
elements.21,22 The method of calculating the age is identical to that
described above. The list is quite interesting. It has been arranged
according to the age calculated. Thisis the time required for river influx
to account for the present quantity contained in the world's oceans.23

Morris states,

"The most obvious characteristic of the values listed in the table
is their extreme variability - all the way from 100 years to 500,000,000
years. This variability, of course, simply reflects the errors in the
fundamental uniformitarian assumptions."
"Nevertheless, all things considered, it seems that those ages on
the low end of the spectrum are likely to be more accurate than those on
the high end. This conclusion follows from the obvious fact that: (1)
they are less likely to have been affected by initial concentrations or
positions other than 'zero'; (2) the assumption that the system was a
'closed system' is more likely to be valid for a short time than for a
long time; (3) the assumption that the process rate was constant is also
more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time."24

This statement makes absolutely no logical sense. If we take him at his
word, then the youngest measurement should yield the correct age of the
earth. The age given by aluminum fits all three of Morris' criteria. But
obviously the earth can't be only 100 years old, so what is wrong?
As usual when a logical argument leads to an absurd conclusion, it means
one of the assumptions is wrong. In this particular case the assumption
that the aluminum-ocean system is a closed system is wrong. A closed
system simply means that none of the material leaves the ocean via
sedimentation or enters the ocean by any other means than river influx. If
aluminum is not being deposited on the ocean floor, then there is
absolutely no other conclusion that can be drawn than that the oceans are
only 100 years old. This is unhistorical and ignores observational reality.
In point of fact, aluminum is constantly being deposited on the ocean
floor by various means. First, plankton accumulate various minerals in
their shells which, when they die, are deposited on the ocean floor (Table
3). Some of these oozes average 25 percent alumina.25 By this means much
aluminum is removed from the ocean waters. There is also removal of
aluminum in the fecal pellets of marine animals that feed on the plankton.
Thus, Morris' assumption that aluminum is not being removed is wrong.
Now, if aluminum is being removed from seawater, then the date calculated
is also wrong. We can now relax secure in the knowledge that the earth's
oceans are older than 100 years. But iron, titanium and chromium also limit
the age of the earth to unrealistic ages. A glance at Table 3 shows that
these elements also are being removed from the seas. If this is not the
case then the Christian has a real theological difficulty. An earth less
than 2,000 years old would not allow for Jesus Christ to have actually
lived, taught and then died on the cross. Without the death on the cross,
there is no forgiveness for sin and Christianity is worthless.
Based on the list Morris compiled, how are we to decide the age of the
oceans? We have ruled out, on historic grounds, that the first seven
entries are wrong because the elements are being deposited on the ocean
floor. But if the first seven are not indicative of the age of the earth,
then the eighth, lead, can not be an age indicator since Caesar conquered
Gaul prior to 2,000 years ago. Abraham, the patriarch, lived almost 4,000
years ago. So, is silicon to be the real indicator of the earth's age? It
can not be special because silicon is also removed from the oceans by
plankton. Cobalt is the first element in Table 5 which is not in Table 6.
But the earth can not be 18,000 years old because cobalt is also being
removed from the water during the formation of manganese nodules.26, 27
Mercury is in Table 6 and is removed by plankton. Bismuth is 1,000 times
more concentrated in marine organisms than it is in seawater, so when the
animal dies, bismuth is removed from the system."
"We could go on and on with our analysis of this issue, but each and every
element in the list is useless for dating the oceans. Even the most
rudimentary logical analysis shows how poor this argument is. There is no
information relevant to the age of the earth here. "
"One of the most fascinating things about the list Morris published in
1974 is that he cites an article by Edward D. Goldberg.21,23 A few pages
after the data is presented, Goldberg, citing a 1956 paper, discusses at
length the fact that plankton concentrates and removes these elements from
the ocean waters. In spite of the fact that this removal mechanism had been
known for 18 years prior
to Morris' publication and that it was discussed in the article he cited,
Morris makes no mention of this mechanism in his report. "

Glenn R. Morton, Foundation, Fall and Flood, 3rd ed. (The Woodlands, TX,
DMD Publishing Co, 1999), p. 26-28
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution