Geology and Young Earth Creationism: age of the earth

Showing posts with label age of the earth. Show all posts

The North Sea Rocks Refute Young-earth Arguments

Young-earth creationists claim that all the sediments on earth were deposited within a one year time frame. Geologists refute these claims but most young-earth advocates do not actually see some of the seismic data which supports what the geologists are saying, nor do they read very many geology books to understand the data of geology as it relates to the issue of the age of the earth. I have presented on these pages several arguments for an old earth. On this page I will present data from the North Sea which shows that things must have taken time.

Unconformities

Young-earth creationists have long struggled to understand how unconformities can form in the short time their flood models allow them. Unconformities are evidence of erosion between two strata and would take much time if the rocks were hard while they were being eroded. One such evidence of erosion can be seen in the seismic data of the Broad Fourteens Basin of the southern North Sea.

One approach to this issue is that taken by John Morris. He says:

“The answer can't always be obtained in the local setting. But, the erosional episode, either the disconformity or the unconformity, can usually be traced laterally through the use of information from oil wells or other outcrops. This may take a lot of work, but as the layers and formations, which themselves may cover vast areas, are traced laterally, they will either pinch out into a zone where they were not deposited at all, or to an area where they were not tilted or eroded. in such cases, an erosional sequence can eventually be resolved into a conformable, continuous depositional sequence.” (John Morris, 1994, p. 105)

Morris hopes that by doing this he can eliminate the erosion time between the two sediments and claim that because there is a place where the sediments are conformable, therefore there is no time between them. In the first place, Morris' assertion that all erosional unconformities lead to conformities, is simply wrong. Quirk and Aitken write:

“Subsidence continued during the early Tertiary when a thick succession of fine-grained marine sediments was deposited. However, a significant period of inversion occurred during the early Miocene and led to the formation of a major unconformity which intersects the present UK land surface farther west.” (Quirk and Aitken, 1997, p. 145)

Secondly, even unconformities which become conformable show evidence of tectonic movements during the time in which the unconformity was forming. This movement simply can't be explained really as the result of a rapid tectonic event. In the Cretaceous strata above (green) one can see that it is thickest in the syncline (where the double arrow is) and that the sediment thins a bit towards the left (thinning means that the sediment is a bit thinner--i. e. less thick). But the underlying Jurassic (upper yellow) does exactly the opposite. it is thinnest where the double arrow is and thickest to the left of that point. This relationship has tremendous implications for the length of time it takes for this unconformity to form.

The thin area of the Jurassic sediment shows that this area was originally the top of a hill. Sediment always deposits thicker in the valleys than it does on top of a hill. What caused the hill? Triassic salt. There used to be a mound of Triassic salt between the Triassic (red) and Jurassic (upper yellow). Salt is mobile and was squeezed out of that area causing the Jurassic hill to become a valley by the time the Cretaceous (green) sediment was deposited. What had been a valley in Jurassic time became a hill by Cretaceous time. While that hill was rising, it was also being eroded. The amount of eroded sediment is shown in the following picture:

All of this activity, the tectonic motion, the erosion, the faulting all occurred PRIOR to the deposition of the horizontal Tertiary sediment. Notice that the faults (the black lines) terminate at the unconformable surface. They terminate there because they didn't move after the end of the Cretaceous Era. If the sediment was the result of a single year of massive tectonic activity and massive sedimentation event, why do the faults ALL suddenly cease moving on exactly the same day? That is very unlikely.

One other indication of time, which can't be seen in seismic data but can be seen in cores taken from oil wells drilled into the sediments are the burrows. A core is a cylinder of rock which is cut out of the rock while the well is drilled. These cores show much evidence of burrows which would require much time to explain. The cases I will present are from the Jurassic.

The Upper Jurassic Ula Formation and Fulmar formation contain Thalassinoides burros. Some of these burrows have encrusted shells and serpulid worms washed into the open burrows. The Jurassic Ror Formation contains burrows of Skolithos, Chondrites, Anconichnus, Planolites, Teichnichnus and Palaeophycus burrows. The base of the Broom Formation (the bottom of the Brent Group) contains Planolites burrows which have a pyrite fill. Only the burrow has the pyrite fill. It must have been deposited during the time the burrow was open, thus indicating a certain amount of time in the deposition of the pyrite. (Taylor and Gawthorpe, 1993, p. 324) Some of the burrows found in the Brent Group have dynocysts in the walls of the burrows showing that the burrow was open to marine conditions. (Taylor and Gawthorpe, 1993, p. 321-322).

That these burrows took time and were not escape structures as many young-earth creationists believe can be demonstrated by what is found to line the burrows:

“Typical dwelling traces include: Skolithos (a simple, unpaired pipe), Ophiomorpha (lined with faecal pellets - which determine a nodular outer surface to the burrow - usually associated with crustaceans), Teredolites (bivalve borings cut into driftwood), and Gastrochaenolites (bivalve borings cut into firm or rock substrates).” (www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/ugrads/image/fieldtrips/TraceFossils/morph.htm) accessed 9-21-02.

Below is a picture of such a burrow taken from Martin and Pollard (1996, Fig 6D, p. 176). It would take time for the animal to deposit that much excrement along his burrow's wall. This was not an animal trying to escape burial but an animal taking his time feeding.

Above I have shown two unconformities, the one at the top of the Carboniferous and the one at the top of the Cretaceous. Other areas of the North sea show other regions with two unconformities.

In the above, the sequence of events is as follows. The Lower Middle Carboniferous strata were laid down relatively flat and then uplifted where indicated. The sediments were then planed off flat along the lower unconformity. After that, more sediments were laid down flat (the Upper Middle Carboniferous. Then at least 800 meters (2400 feet) of sediment were eroded and the land was tilted in such a fashion that the upper unconformity was flat. We know this because the Rotliegend formation does not vary in thickness across the seismic section. They were laid down on a flat surface. If they hadn't been, like the Broad Fourteens Basin data, we would see thickening of the sediment. Above the Rotliegend, the Zechstein was laid down. Both unconformities require time. Time for the sediments to be laid down, time for the sediments to be tilted, time for the sediments to be eroded.

Many of these unconformities found in British rocks contain features which absolutely make it impossible for them to have been created instantly as the young-earth position requires. This is from a UK creationist (Robinson, 1996, p. 61)

“The oyster bed at the unconformity between Carboniferous limestone and Jurassic oolite in Somerset has already been mentioned. The oysters--at least two generations of them---grew in situ, for they are cemented to the hardground in life, and the contours of their shells are adapted to those adjacent.”

It is decidedly unlikely for oysters to be transported by a global flood and deposited back on top of the same oyster he lived on in the pre-flood world. One must remember that the unconformity Robinson is speaking of is halfway up the geologic column, or half way through the supposed global flood. Robinson further says (1996, p. 61)

“The example from Somerset is far from unique. Fursich studied 36 hardgrounds and related phenomena from Jurassic localities (mostly Middle Jurassic) in England, France, Germany and Poland, the development of which--taken together--must have required many years to develop.”

Why doesn't Ken Ham and other Answers in Genesis leaders tell this to their followers? It was published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, a journal with which their organization is closely affiliated. It seems terribly inconsistent for them to claim a one year flood when their own journal publishes differently.

Landslides and tectonic movements as unconformable events

There is a unique type of unconformity in the North Sea and it consists of landslides which occurred during the Jurassic rifting which formed the Viking Graben. Remember that thin sediments are deposited on topographically high regions and thick sediments are deposited in topographic lows. This is illustrated below:

In tilted blocks the deposited sediment will thin towards the high. We see this in the northern North Sea. Lee and Hwang (1993, p. 1142) note:

“It is now well known that rifting in the Northern North Sea commenced during the early Triassic, peaked during the late Jurassic, and terminated by the late Cretaceous.”

As the rifting occurred, earthquakes were going on. These eventually caused the cliffs to collapse in landslides as shown below.

We see these features in the northern North Sea. Here is a map of the Brent province taken from Lee and Hwang, 1993, p. 1141.

One can see the thinning of the sediments towards the high part of the arrowed block (the blocks almost all fault down to the east). This thinning shows that the rock motion was taking place while the Kimmeridge was being deposited. The Kimmeridge is a shale, and shales can only be deposited very slowly because of the particle size. It takes 50 to 100 years for shale particles to fall to the bottom of the sea. This particular shale is the source rock for 68% of the oil in the North Sea. It has preserved up to 10% organic carbon and this can only happen if the waters are very still and devoid of oxygen. A global flood would stir oxygen throughout the water column making it difficult to preserve this much organic carbon.

The shaded areas are the landslides. The landslides occurred after the Kimmeridge shale was deposited but before the beginning of the Cretaceous deposition. This indication of time is never spoken of by young-earth creationists.

Desert Deposits

Another indication of much time in the rocks of the UK consist of the desert deposits of the Rotliegend. Many young earth creationists claim that desert deposits don't exist. They have to say this because it is impossible to conceive of a global deluge depositing desert deposits. Henry and John Morris write:

“Finally, Young cites desert formations as contradicting the flood model, though he says little about them. If real desert-formed features do exist in the deeper geologic deposits, this could indeed be a problem for the Biblical model since the antediluvian environment was said by God to be all ‘very good’ and the future promised restoration of these to good conditions to the earth includes desert reclamation (e.g., Isaiah 35).” (Morris and Morris,1989, p. 37)

Leonard Brand (1997, p. 69), a creationist, writes:

“When I began to study the fossil vertebrate trackways in this formation, I had doubts about the desert-dune origin of the tracks, initially for philosophical reasons, and set out to evaluate alternate hypotheses for formation of the tracks.”

Those philosophical reasons are that there had to be a global flood, something his religion requires. This is clearly a case of letting one's preconceptions drive one's science.

And creationist Higley (1940, p. 108) writes (showing how old this idea is):

“Neither the desert nor the swamp could have existed in the reconstruction, because they would not have served the purpose of supporting life in the best way. Besides, it is called simply ‘dry land.’ It is all designated by the same term. Hence it must have been essentially the same.”

Sediments are interpreted as being from a desert because they show the same sequence of lithologies and sedimentological features as those found in modern deserts (see Hunter, 1977, p. 384-385). The Rotliegend, mentioned above, is a perfect example of a desert deposit. Ruffell and Shelton (2000, p. 305) write:

“Sand deposition was either fluvial-lacustrine in areas adjacent to the uplands or aeolian on upland intermontaine basins and in the broad basins of the Southern North Sea. Such sands (e.g. Rotliegendes) display the classic features of desert sedimentation, including millet-seed quartz grains with iron-manganese oxide desert coating and preserved dune-forms.”

There are 600 feet of desert sand deposited in the Sole Pit area of the southern North Sea (George and Berry, 1997, p. 34)

The need for time shows itself in the fact that there are multiple salt beds in the Rotliegend formation. Glennie writes (1997, p. 6)

“Because basin-centre subsidence proceeded more rapidly than sedimentation, a major saline desert lake occupied the basin centre. Climatic changes, controlled by changes in the size of the Gondwana ice cap, caused cyclicity in sedimentation which, in addition to repeated halite sequences, can also be recognised in basin margin sequences.”

George and Berry (1997, p. 37) report 13 different salt beds in the 1000 m thick section. Each salt bed has sediment in between it and the next one. How on earth is a flood geologist to account for this? Salt shouldn't be deposited during a global flood, yet here we have 13 different salt beds deposited. George and Berry (1997, p. 39) write:

“Thickness data suggest that the cycles from the basin centre that contain relatively thick halite horizons (Fig. 6, Units 2 & 3, 41 m and 31 m respectively) are thinner than those composed entirely of claystones (Fig. 6 Units 4 & 5, 91 m and 102 m respectively). This would imply that the accumulation rate of halite. Published estimates for the rates of precipitation of halite vary from 5 to 140 mm a^-1 (500 to 14 000 cm ka^-1) (Sonnefeld 1984) but periodic dissolution could result in much lower halite preservation rates of 0.1-4.0 mm a^-1 (10-400 cm ka^-1) (Barnett & Shaw 1983).”

How much salt water must have been evaporated above this well in order to deposit that much salt? Dean (1978 p. 81) notes:

“Second, the data in table 4.2 indicate how much water must have been evaporated to produce an evaporite deposit 1,000 m thick. For example, complete evaporation of the World's oceans would produce a layer of salts about 6 m thick (total volume about 2 X 10¹⁰ km3) with a NaCl:CaSO4 of 31:1. By contrast, the evaporites in the Permian Zechstein basin are more than 600 m thick, with a total volume of more than 2 X 10⁹ Km³ and a NaCl:CaSO4 of about 5:1 (Borcher and Muir, 1964). Ryan (1976) estimates that the upper Miocene evaporites in the Mediterranean basins contain more than 10⁶ Km³ of evaporites deposited within about two million years. Clearly a major portion of the World's oceans must have been evaporated to produce the giant evaporite deposits of the past.”

Since salt isn't deposited during floods but only during dry spells, it seems to me that the Rotliegendes with it salt is clearly the result of a dry episode and thus represents a desert. Contrary to what many young-earth creationists content, desert deposits really exist and they disprove the global flood concept entirely.

Volcanic eruptions

The early Tertiary was a time when the Atlantic Ocean was being formed. Europe and North America were slowly separating. As would be expected, such an event would cause many volcanoes. Volcanoes, when they erupt, send out vast quantities of ash into the atmosphere. This ash then comes to earth and settles in the seas. If you are close enough to a volcano quite a layer of ash can be deposited. Volcanoes don't erupt constantly. There are periods of time between the eruptions. Today only 40 volcanoes erupt on average every year.

What do we find in the sediments of the North Sea? Evidence of thousands of individual volcanic eruptions.. Anderton (2000, p. 383) writes:

“The Balder Formation is also important in that it records the most intense phase of volcanic activity seen in the North Sea. In the lower part of the unit there are hundreds of individual ash layers, mostly only millimeters to centimetres thick but forming a total thickness of over 8 m at the northern end of the North Sea Basin, and known informally as the Balder Tuff. This ash unit is an important marker throughout the North Sea as it produces a distinctive gamma or sonic bow on well logs. The total ash thickness declines toward the south-east, but ashes are found as far away as southern England, Germany and Denmark. The ashes are of Theoleiitic-basalt composition and were probably erupted from a large volcano, somewhere along the North Atlantic rift, north-west of Britain.”

Dating of cementation event

The aeolian sands were deposited with very little clay. Microscopic analysis of the Rotliegend sand shows that there is very little illite (clay mineral) in the form of deposited particles. All the illite is precipitated in the space between the sand grains in the form of whiskers of illite (see G. P. Leveille et al, 2000, p. 111 for a picture). When an aeolian sand is deposited without clay, the illite doesn't grow until the sand has been buried deep enough for the subsurface fluid to enable the proper chemical reactions. One can date the time of the growth of the illite cement by radioactive dating. In the case of the Rotliegend sand, the illite dates to around 150 million years ago. Leveille et al (1997a, p. 111) say:

“K-Ar dating of authigenic illite was done on 39 samples from the eight wells included in the diagenetic study in order to determine the timing of illite formation. Separation and analysis techniques utilized were broadly similar to those described by Robinson et al (1993) and were designed to avoid contamination with other potassium-bearing minerals. All of the ages determined lie in the range from 177 to 122 Ma (Mid-Jurassic to Early Cretaceous), except for two analyses from the 49/16-4 well which gave ages of 88 and 104 Ma (Early to Late Cretaceous).”

As I said, in order for the illite to form, the sediment must be buried deeply enough, which means it has to be heated as well. If you study the sediment for chemical changes caused by this heating, you find that the Rotliegendes was buried deep enough to be heated to around 110 degrees centigrade. This occurred while the 125 million year old Cretaceous sediments were being deposited above the Rotliegendes. Thus the illite cement was being deposited about the time of the deepest burial the Rot experienced.

These two pieces of evidence support the concept that it took a long time for the North Sea sediments to be deposited. Heat doesn't flow through sediment very rapidly. Indeed it can take 50,000 or more years to heat sediments up to that temperature. The fact that the Rotliegend was heated that much, shows that it took a long, long time for the sedimentary column to be deposited.

Relict Oil fields

Another indication of age in the North Sea sedimentary record concerns the existence of old oil fields. An oil field is formed when it oil migrates into a trap region. It takes time for the oil to form and be expelled from the source rocks. In the North Sea the source rock is the Kimmeridge claystone which has as much as 10% organic matter. The oil will only form when the Kimmeridge is buried to a sufficient depth (and thus heated to sufficient temperature). Thus, it takes time to bury the Kimmeridge and to heat it so that the oil will form. And then the oil, once expelled from the Kimmeridge, must travel a tortuous path through the rock. It will eventually leak to the surface and into the ocean unless it encounters an impermeable rock which prevents its escape. Then it will fill up all the porous space in the rock and form an oil field.

Creationists claim that oil will leak in a few thousand years from an oil trap. Kohfahl (1977, p. 122-123) claims:

“Petroleum and natural gas are held at high pressures in underground reservoirs of porous rock and sand. These fluids are retained in their reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. However, in many cases the pressures are exceedingly high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock show that the oil or gas pressure could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years or perhaps a maximum of 100,000 years (permeability is a measure of how easily fluids under pressure will seep through the rock.) If these fossil fuel deposits were actually millions or hundreds of millions of years old, they would long ago have leaked out through their cap rock to the surface.”

Like many things creationists claim, this too is based on a misunderstanding of what traps oil. Low permeability is not the reason oil fields form. Capillary pressure is what holds the oil in a trap and it can hold the oil for millions upon millions of years. The only time oil leaks out of a field is when the pore throats are big enough to reduce the capillary pressure. In the North Sea, Leveille et al (1997b, p. 88) relates:

“The petrophysical properties of fault rocks encountered in the depth range of most oil and gas reservoirs are largely determined by the amount of cementation, mechanical grain rearrangement, grain fracturing, frictional grainboundary sliding, and cataclastic flow that has occurred. These processes control pore sizes and pore geometries, and thereby determine the porosity, permeability and sealing capacity (i.e. capillary pressure) of fault rocks.”

What we find in the North Sea is that fields formed and then had time for the sediment to be eroded. In the Castleton area of England we find the following:

“The abundance and variety of residual oil shows in the Castleton area suggest that, before the removal of the Namurian cover, the shelf margin crest and the northwards inclined shelf margin succession could have hosted a significant oil accumulation. The elaterite of Windy Knoll to the west of Castleton provides the best exposure of a residual oil body. Windy Knoll forms a small culmination on the ridge crest that was previously completely top and side sealed by the Edale Shale Formation. Our field work suggests that the base of the elaterite defines a residual oil-water contact (OWC). Bitumen impregnation in limestone breccias below the OWC may indicate the charge pathway. These breccias were found by Peacock & Taylor (1966) to be radioactive. If the bitumen and uranium are genetically associated, an indication of the area formerly open to oil migration is provided by Peacock & Taylor's map of surface uranium anomalies. Radioactive anomalies occupy the entire 6000 m long, 500 m wide and 150 m high exposed portion of the slope to the south of the anomalies persist in depth. They illustrate samples of bituminous calcite and uraniferous phosphatic limestone collected from caves in the Castleton area.” (Cameron and Ziegler, 1997, p. 138). [OWC is oil-water contact--grm]

The amount of time required for the Kimmeridge to be buried, to be heated so it could form oil, for the oil to migrate into a trap in the Castleton area, and then the time for the erosion to remove the sedimentary cover and release the oil must be considerable. Young-earth creationists never tell you about these kinds of features. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness, as the Bible says. (Romans 1)

Even in the subsurface we find oil fields that formed but then leaked. They are very rare and it is not often we find such things, but here is what we find in the Rotliegendes (Leveille et al, 1997a, p. 118):

“Gas was almost certainly the primary hydrocarbon phase to fill the early formed traps because of the overwhelming volume of gas prone source rocks present in the underlying Carboniferous section. Residual oil staining does, however, suggest some oil may also have been generated. The residual oil staining typically occurs in dark brown bands and is interpreted to have formed from oil rims on early gas accumulations.”

Erosion of the Scottish Highlands.

I currently live in an area which, geologically, is the Scottish Highlands. About 15 miles south of my house in Peterculter, Scotland is the Highland boundary fault. This fault marks the southern edge of the former Laurentian continent, most of which now constitutes North America. The area north of the Highland Boundary Fault was split off from North America during the early Tertiary. Woodcock and Strachan (2000, p. 194) state:

“Many of the faults have a long history. The Highland Boundary Fault, for example, may originally have defined the south-east limit of rifted Laurentian crust during the Neoproterozoic development of Iapetus. It was later transformed into a collisional suture by accretion of the Midland Valley basement and arc during the Grampian Orogeny.”

The terrane in the Scottish highlands consists of igneous rocks. Very little sedimentary rock, save the Devonian Old Red Sandstone, exists north of the fault. This terrane is among the oldest terranes in the world. And these rocks are hard.

Traveling through western Scotland one can see some incredible scenery, tall mountains and thundering waterfalls. Looking at the waterfalls, which have water constantly pouring over them, one is struck by how little the water has eroded these rocks. Eon upon eon, these rocks have been assaulted by the water, and yet the water has carved less than 2 meters into some of the cliffs. The reason for this is the hardness of these rocks. This land has been eroded so long that tens of kilometers of rock have been removed from it. In extreme NW Scotland we find this (Strachan 2000, p. 49)

“In the area between Scourie and Gruinard Bay, deformation was associated with granulite facies metamorphism and formation of anhydrous orthopyroxene-quartz-feldspar assemblages. Metamorphism occurred at temperatures of 950-1000^o C and pressures of 11-15 kbar, corresponding to crustal depths of 35-50 km. Pb-Pb dating of monazite inclusions in early formed garnets suggest that high grade metamorphism occurred at c. 2.76 Ga.”

This is 1.4 x 10^-5 m/year erosion over that area. These rocks are very, very hard but they clearly show that billions of years have elapsed in the history of the world. Young earth arguments never mention the issues we have discussed here. Indeed, young-earth leaders never, ever tell their followers these things. As I said, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

References

Anderton, R., 2000. “Tertiary Events: The North Atlantic Plume and Alpine Pulses,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Brand, Leonard, 1997, Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press)
Cameron, Nick, and Tom Ziegler, 1997 “Probing the Lower Limits of a Fairway: Further Pre-Permian Potential in the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 123-141.
Dean, Walter E., 1978. “Theoretical Versus Observed Successions From Evaporation of Seawater,” Marne Evaporites, SEPM Short Course #4
George, G. T., and J. K. Berry, 1997. “Permian (Upper Rotliegend) Synsedimentary Tectonics, Basin Development and Palaeogeography of the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), p 31-61.
Glennie, K. W., 1997. “History of Exploration in the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), p. 5-16.
L. Allen Higley, 1940, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell)
Hunter, Ralph E., 1977. “Basic Types of Stratification in Small Eolian Dunes,” Sedimentology, 24:361-387.
Kofahl, Robert E. 1977 Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, (San Diego: Beta Books)
Lee, M. J.and Y. J. Hwang, “Tectonic Evolution and structural Styles of the East Shetland Basin,” Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4^th Conference, J. R. Parker, ed. (London: The Geological Society, 1993), p. 1137-1149, p. 1142.
Leveille, G. P. et al., 1997a. “Diagenetic Controls on Reservoir Quality in Permian Rotliegendes Sandstones, Jupiter Fields Area, Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 105-122.
Leveille, Gregory P. et al. 1997b. “Compartmentalization of Rotliegendes Gas Reservoirs by Sealing Faults, Jupiter fields Area, Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 87-104.
Martin, M. A., and J. E. Pollard, 1996. “The Role of Trace Fossil (Ichnofabric) analysis in the Development of Depositional Models for the Upper Jurassic Fulmar Formation of the Kittiwake Field (Quadrant 21 UKCS),” in Andrew Hurst et al, editors, Geology of the Humber Group: Central Graben and Moray Firth, UKCS, Geological Society Special Publication No. 114, (London: The Geological Society), Fig 6d, p. 176.
Morris, Henry M., and John D. Morris, 1989. Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research)
Morris, John D., 1994. The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books)
Quirk, David G. and John F. Aitken, 1997. “The Structure of the Westphalian in the Northern Part of the Southern North Sea,” in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 143-152.
Ruffell, A. H., and R. G. Shelton, 2000. “Permian to Late Triassic Post-Orogenic Collapse, and Early Atlantic Rifting, Deserts, evaporating Seas and Mass Extinctions,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Robinson, Steven J., 1996. “Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10:1:32-69
Strachan, R. A. 2000. “Early Earth History and Development of the Archaean Crust,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)
Taylor, A. M. and R. L. Gawthorpe, 1993. “Application of Sequence Stratigraphy and Trace Fossil Analysis to Reservoir Description Examples from the Jurassic of the North Sea,” in J. R. Parker, ed. Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe, Proceedings of the 4th Conference, Vol. 1, (London: The Geological Society)
Woodcock, N. H. and R. A. Strachan, 2000. “The Caledonian Orogeny: A Multiple Plate Collision,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science)

Boundaries on Creation and Noah’s Flood: Early 19th century scriptural geologists

(home.entouch.net/dmd/mortensonresp2.htm)

Terry Mortenson's paper given to the ETS Denver 2001. “Boundaries on Creation and Noah's Flood: Early 19^th century scriptural geologists” By The Revd Michael Roberts, Vicar of Cockerham, nr Lancaster, England.

Michael thinks I am misrepresenting him in this area. I don't think I am and at least some others don't think so either. See here for an example (www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1674952&postcount=38).

Because of this dispute, Michael has asked me to remove his excellent paper on Mortenson. I am reluctantly doing so and offer to Michael the chance to put it back up at anytime. How not having his paper on my website will solve our dispute is beyond me.

Michael Roberts and I have had a long running dispute about the existence of YECs in the 19th century (“19th Century Opponents of Geology and Evolution: Or, The YECs Ye Have With You Always”).

Steve Austin's Grand Canyon Erosion Argument: A Mathematical Sleight of Hand

Steve Austin presents an argument for the age of the earth in his 1994 book “Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe” on pages 87-89. Starting with an observed sediments carried by the Colorado River of 168 million tons per year, he shows, (correctly) that this represents the erosion .015 cubic miles per year. He then correctly notes that the volume eroded out of the Grand Canyon is approximately 1000 cubic miles. Dividing the two numbers he incorrectly obtains an age of 67,000 years for the time it would take to erode the Grand Canyon. Beyond the fact that this is ten times too old to fit into his young-earth scenario, Austin argues that the evolutionists are wrong to believe in millions of years for the canyon to form.

Where does Steve go wrong? Well, it is in assuming that ALL the sediment carried by the Colorado River comes from the Canyon itself. Without his reader's knowing it, Steve is saying that absolutely no erosion is occurring in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, which, of course, is a bizarre claim to make if one were to make it explicitly. But by not mentioning this implicit assumption in his calculation, those unfamiliar with the geologic facts will be fooled into thinking Steve has proven a short erosion time for the Grand Canyon.

The Colorado River extends 1450 miles from the mouth to the source in Colorado. Only 500 miles of this length are to be found in the Grand Canyon. The drainage area of the Colorado River is 640,000 square kilometers but the Canyon has an area of only 13,000 square kilometers. Scott Mclennan (reference below) reports that the Colorado River, prior to the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, carried 121 million tons of sediment each year. This is slightly less than the study cited by Austin so we will use his larger value of 168 million tons per year so that no one can claim we are shopping for values favorable to us.

The drainage area of the Colorado is 640,000 sq. km. and the area of the canyon is only 13,000 sq km. 800 km x 16 km wide = 12,800 sq. km. Thus, on a linear weighting, one can expect that only 2 percent of the sediment actually comes from the canyon, the rest comes from the rest of the area. But let's be fair to Steve and say that 30 percent of the sediment comes from the canyon. That means that 168,000,000*.3 =50,400,000 tons per year are moved by the river OUT OF THE CANYON AREA with the rest coming from the rest of the drainage basin. To a first approximation there are 1000 kg/ton which means that 50.4 billion kg of material is moved down the river, or given a density of 2500 kg/m, we have 20.1 million cubic meters moving down the river each year. Dividing by the area of the Canyon (which is 13,000,000,000 square meters) we have a lowering of the Canyon surface by 20.1 x 10^6/1.3 x 10^10= 1.5 x 10^-3 m per year--hardly indicating a young earth. This is about 1.5 mm per year of excavation out of the Canyon.

So how long will it take the canyon to be excavated at this rate?

20.1 million cubic meters sediment per year = .0048 cubic mile sediment/year

1000 cubic miles/ .0048 cubic mile sediment/year = 207,000 years

Only 207,000 years? Yes, but remember, we have favored Steve greatly by allowing 30% of all erosion to occur in 2% of the area and there is NO evidence that this is the case. If one scales the determines the canyon erosion by its proportional area it would take three million years to erode the canyon, a value much more aligned with the geologic evidence.

But one question arises here. Why do young-earth creationists think that a 67,000 year age (or a 207,000 year age) for the Grand Canyon indicate a young earth? I have been on this earth less than 100 years. Does my age indicate that the earth is really only 100 years old? Does the silting up of the Colorado River behind the Glen Canyon Dam (a process which has been going on since the dam was close less than 100 years ago) indicate that the earth is only 100 years old or less? Of course, this is a silly line of logic and would be roundly condemned if stated explicitly. But that is what Steve is doing with his calculation. He is claiming that something which began long after the earth was formed, limits the age of the earth.

And what he doesn't tell people is that there are conclusive evidence of long ages prior to the Canyon's erosion in the sediments of the canyon. This evidence consists of burrows in the sediment (psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/nacofm.html) (geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm), footprints on sedimentary layer after layer (Lockley and Hunt, 1995, p. 57), and cave erosion and collapse all occurring prior to the beginning of the canyon erosion. This last evidence is particularly interesting.

The Red-wall limestone contains collapsed caves which collapsed at a time when the entire Grand Canyon area was covered with an additional couple of hundred feet of sediment. When the cave collapsed the sediment above it fell into the cave void, filling it. This is what happens in Florida with a sink hole--a cave below the surface collapsed and whatever was above the collapse falls into the hole. At the Grand Canyon Wenrich and Huntoon (1989, p. 212) write of these pipes which occur at a rate of 6 per square mile:

“The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation.”

The Chinle is a Triassic bed which lies above the Moenkopi which in turn lies above the Triassic Shinarump. Just north of the Canyon the Shinarump and Moenkopi are 1900 feet thick. Thus it is possible that when the caves collapsed, the Grand Canyon was covered with as much as an additional 2000 feet of sediment which was nearly totally removed. There is a small remnant of it on the SE side of the Canyon at Cedar Mountain. Assuming that we removed this covering layer at the same rate as the Colorado River today removes sediment how long would it take? The Triassic strata has been removed over at least 20,000 square kilometers and was at least 2000 feet thick. This means that nearly 3000 cubic miles of sediment have been removed BEFORE THE CANYON EROSION BEGAN. Using the 2 percent rule we last used above, 3000/.0048 = at least 625,000 years of erosion. Of course, Steve never tells anyone about that erosional event.

It takes time for the sediment to be deposited, burrows be dug, more sediment be deposited more burrows and animal tracks to be made and then for caves to erode in solid rock and then to collapse and then for the Triassic strata to be almost completely eroded from the Canyon area AND ONLY THEN does the Canyon erosion begin.

One general comment, if Steve admits that it takes several tens of thousands of years to dig out the canyon (by his own calculation) he must then allow for other buried canyons which are found on seismic data.

Thus the age of the entire canyon sequence must be older than the length of time it takes to erode the canyon. Of course, the young-earthers can't accept this evidence. It is a shame that Christian apologetics relies on such sloppy logic to support a young-earth.

References

Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994)
M. Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995)
Scott M. Mclennan “Weathering and Global Denudation”, Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296
Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, “Breccia Pipes and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona,” Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 212

Three Hundred Years in the Middle of the Flood--Evidence of Time in the Geologic Record

One of the things that young-earth creationists miss is the activities of biological organisms in the fossil record. Desert varnish is an iron manganese oxide coating that is found on rocks in arid regions. For years this coating was thought to be an abiologic chemical reaction. This has been shown to be false. Desert varnish is now known to be the result of bacteria which live on the surface of the rocks and through their biologic activity deposit a manganese rich coating on the rock surface. Living in nearly a waterless environment, these microbes protect themselves from ultraviolet light by oxidizing the manganese in the rock. (Wills and Bada 2000, p. 165-166)

When European priests first entered the arid southwestern US, they found vast tracks of land with cobbles dark on the top and light on the undersides. They turned the stones over making huge, light-colored crosses in the desert. In the intervening 300 years, the crosses are still visible but are now beginning to fade. It has taken 300 years for the microbes to cover the stones' upper surfaces with varnish.

With this as a background, what is one to conclude when we find this same type of varnish coating Permian sand grains in the Zechstein of the North Sea? The Permian rocks are from the very middle of the supposedly flood deposited rocks. This should be the time of the maximal flooding of the earth, yet here we find desert varnish which requires at least 300 years to form. Not only this, the sand grains which are coated with this slow-forming film, are found in shape of sand dunes like those found in arid regions today. (Ruffell and Shelton, p. 305)

Clearly this evidence shows that there was at least a 300 year interval in the middle of the flood. This is something that the young-earth creationists never tell you!

References

A. H. Ruffell and R. G. Shelton, “Permian to Late Triassic Post-Orogenic Collapse, and Early Atlantic Rifting, Deserts, evaporating Seas and Mass Extinctions,” in Nigel Woodcock and Rob Strachan, editors, Geological History of Britain and Ireland, (London: Blackwell Science, 2000), p. 305)
Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada, The Spark of Life, (Cambridge MA: Perseus Publishing, 2001), p. 165-166).

Salt in the Sea Argument--The Solution to the Creationist Puzzle

Austin and Humphreys have claimed that the sodium budget in the oceans indicates a young earth. They claim that there is a huge imbalance in the input versus the output of the sodium. This is erroneous. This letter was sent to Steve Austin on the date noted, but as of July 27, 1998, there has been no response. The letter below is slightly altered to take into account some new information. The calculation in the letter clearly shows that sodium does leave the ocean contrary to the claims of the young-earth creationists.

Sometime in 1999 or 2000 a gentleman informed me of a mathematical error in this letter. I revised the math so it is slightly different from the letter I sent Steve. The error in no way affects the conclusion. Steve Austin called this difference to my attention again. Steve then requested certain technical changes in the letter which I will perform assuming I come the conclusion that he is correct.

Below, after the letter and its references I will make some more comments about the recent discussion Steve and I have had on this issue.

Glenn Morton

Glenn R. Morton
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, TX 75248
Oct 4, 1997

Dr. Steven A. Austin
Institute for Creation Research
10846 Woodside Ave. N.
Santee, CA 92071

Dear Steve

First thing. I would like to get hold of Joe. Do you have an address for him? I asked this about a year ago and you didn't respond. I am trying again. Just give me the city he is in and I can probably find him. If he has an e-mail address that would be best.

Secondly, I think I have found a numerical solution to the sodium problem. It involves albitization, which you have consistently maintained has no relevance to the output of sodium from the sea. I say this because you have consistently said that albitization has a value of 0 in the output column. This is wrong. The article of relevance is K. L. Von Damm, “Controls on the Chemistry and Temporal Variability of Seafloor Hydrothermal Fluids,” in Humphris et al editors, Seafloor Hydrothermal Systems: Physical, Chemical, Biological and Geological Interactions, Geophysical Monograph 91, (Washington: American Geophysical Union, 1995), pp 222-247.

Von Damm states,

“Sodium is by far the most abundant cation in hydrothermal fluids, and as such, its cycle is tightly tied to that of chloride. Sodium is not conservative in water-rock reactions as is chloride, but has a major sink in the albitization of basalt. The largest sodium deficits with respect to chloride are found in high chlorinity fluids. In a few cases the Na/Cl ratio is slightly greater than in seawater and the cause of this is not well understood.” (Von Damm, 1995, p. 238)

and

“Sodium, the most abundant cation, of necessity tracks chloride, but where it does not (i.e., the Na/Cl ratio is lower than the seawater value) provides our best evidence that albitization is an active process in hydrothermal vent systems.” (Von Damm, 1995 p. 240)

The most important statement is the conservative nature of chlorine. If one can count on the fact that the number of chlorine atoms in the hydrothermal fluids are not changed by the trip through the hydrothermal system, and can assume that the chlorine comes from the seawater, then the sodium/chlorine ratio reflects the fate of sodium. Here is the data Von Damm gives for various hydrothermal systems.

                              Chlorinity Sodium ratio
                                 mmol/kg mmol/kg

North East Pacific

Escanaba Trough                   668     560     .838

Juan de Fuca

s. cleft plume                   1087     796     .7322
s. cleft vent 1                   896     661     .7377
s. cleft vent 3                   951     784     .8243

North Cleft Juan de Fuca

Pipe organ                       1245     924     .7421
Monolith 1990                     908     695     .7654
         1991                     875     682     .7794
Table Brigadoon                   880     681     .7738

Axial volcano Juan de Fuca

inferno                           624     499     .7996
Hell                              550     446     .8109
Mushroom                          520     446     .8576
Hillock                           482     391     .8112
Crack                             258     209     .8100
Virgin Mound                      176     148     .8409

Endeavour segment Juan de Fuca

Hulk                              505     391     .7742
Crypto                            479     371     .7745
TP                                448     350     .7812
Dante                             457     358     .7833
Grotto                            425     332     .7811
LOBO                              428     336     .7850
Dudley                            349     271     .7765
S&M                               334     260     .7784
Peanut                            253     216     .8537
North                             477     378     .7924

Mid Atlantic Ridge

MARK                              559     510     .9123
Tag Mid Atlantic Ridge            659     584     .8861

(Von Damm, 1995, p. 229-230)

Now, seawater contains 470 mmol/kg water sodium, and 550 mmol/kg water chlorine. The normal sodium/chlorine molar ratio= .8545. Averaging the numbers in Von Damm's paper, we find that .800 is the sodium/chlorine ratio of hydrothermal output. The difference between the input ratio and output ratio is .054. This means that .054*550 mmol/kg= 29.7 mmol/kg water sodium is removed from the sea.

To convert this to grams of sodium we find, .0297 moles removed/kg water * 22 g/mole=.65 g of sodium per kg water is removed by the hydrothermal process.

Since the annual flow rate of seawater through the hydrothermal systems is (2-9) x 10¹⁴ kg/yr (Holland, 1978), this means (using the low point of this range),

2 x 10¹⁴ kg/yr*.65 g/kg water= 1.3 x 10¹⁴ g of sodium removed per year or 1.3 x 10¹¹ kg per year

How does this compare to your value of sodium input? Both in Austin and Humphreys (1990) and in your letter of June 24, 1996 you cite a maximum input to the seas of 4.5 x 10¹¹ kg of sodium input to the sea each year. In your letter you revised the output to be 1.46 x 10¹¹ kg/yr, but you have 0 for albitization. Adding the albitization value to your June 24,1996 value we have a total output of 4.9 x 10¹¹ kg/year. Thus, considering the slop in the numbers, we can conclude that the oceans are roughly in balance in regard to sodium.

Your June 24, 1996 output list should be revised to show

Process                          10¹⁰ kg/yr

Sea Spray                         8.0 +/- 2.4
Low-T brine alteration(saponite)  0.44 +/- 0.37
High T Brine alteration (albite) 13.0
Burial of pore water              2.2 +/- 1.5
Halite deposition                   0 *
Cation exchange                   3.5 +/- .2
Zeolite formation                 0.08 +/- 0.04
biogenic silica                   0.046 +/- 0.023
biogenic carbonates               0.19 +/- 0.05

       Total                      27.456 x 1010 kg/yr

Evaporation (Halite deposition) should have a time-averaged value because of the geologically episodic output.

>>This was not in the original letter. The above value of 0 for Halite deposition came from a letter Austin sent me. But in the 1990 2nd International Conference On Creationism, Vol 2 p. 21, Austin and Humphreys have a published value of 4 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr. Adding this to the 27.4 above yields an output of 31 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr. This corresponds to a published 45 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr maximum input and a 35 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr minimum input to the seas (From the 2nd ICC volume). >>

Even if we use the maximum input and the minimum output I calculated, the sea will be in sodium balance for a long, long time because as one goes back into the past, there is successively less and less land area because the sea is covering the continents. This means that the input of salt to the sea decreases significantly by the time one makes it to the Cretaceous.

References

Austin, Steven A. and Russell Huphreys, 1990. “The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists,” 2nd Intl. Conf. on Creationism, (Pittsburgh, 1990),pp 17-33
Heinrich D. Holland, 1978 The Chemistry of the Atmosphere and Oceans, (John Wiley and Sons, 1978), p. 196)
Von Damm, K. L.,1995. “Controls on the Chemistry and Temporal Variability of Seafloor Hydrothermal Fluids,” in Humphris et al editors, Seafloor Hydrothermal Systems: Physical, Chemical, Biological and Geological Interactions, Geophysical Monograph 91, (Washington: American Geophysical Union, 1995), pp 222-247,

Further Comments

Steve e-mailed me on 12/19/01 with three demands. First he wanted to know why I had altered the letter accusing me of not being able to live with the original albitization value. I assured him that this was due to a mathematical error which was pointed out to me by another guy.

Secondly, he wanted me to contact Heinrich Holland about albitization. I have tried but have been unsuccessful as yet. I e-mailed him and have yet to receive a response. But I also contacted Karen Von Damm about the same issue. She informed me that it was difficult to get a global flux value for sodium but that it was definitely being removed at the ridges. As additional support for substantial sodium removal, she noted that the charge balance among the ions in the water must be conserved and that when sodium is removed, calcium is added. She also noted that albitization was widespread in the greenstone belts (ancient hydrothermal systems). That being said, based on a fluid in/fluid out compositional analysis, it is absolutely certain that sodium is being removed from the sea water, whatever the quantitative division into various processes doing the removing.

I also did some further research on albitization in ancient hydrothermal zones, like that of the Troodos Ophiolite in Cyprus. Gillis (2002) reports that albitic plagioclase is found in such sites. Figure 2 of that paper shows some photomicrographs with the caption:

“d. Pervasively altered gabbro, 20%-40% replacement of plagioclase by epidote, amphibole, and albitic plagioclase (sample KG92072).”

Now, Steve also claimed that the value I cited was far too much sodium to be removed. Indeed, Steve said it was ‘absurd’. So, I performed a calculation to test that assertion. There are 25 cubic kilometers of new basaltic crust added to the earth every year. There are 10⁹ cubic meters per cubic kilometer so there are

25 x 10⁹ cubic meters of new crust.

To calculate the mass of this rock, we need to multiply by 3000 kg/m³ which is the density of basalt. Thus there are:

75 x 10¹² kg of new basalt added each year.

Dividing the 13 x 10¹⁰ kg of sodium by the 75 x 10¹² kg of basalt, we find that the removed sodium consists of .0017 of the mass of basalt. This is a tiny number compared to the volume of new crust. It would be hard to claim that this small increase didn't occur. Furthermore the deepsea drilling program has recovered extensively altered basalts from site 1116 near the Moresby seamount. The report says 44 deg S 129 E:

“Basalts and dolerites are pervasively altered; the albitization of plagioclase (± chlorite ± calcite) and the replacement of olivine, glass, and, in part, pyroxene by phyllosilicates suggests spilitization as an alteration process. In Hole 1116A, prehnite veins cut dolerite clasts and plagioclase is altered to prehnite. More rarely, dolerite clasts are pervasively replaced by pumpellyite with minor prehnite. The marked green-yellow pleochroism of pumpellyite suggests Fe-rich composition.” (reference Internet 3 below)

I am going to include a calculation which Steve sent me on December 19th. I include it to show how he picks and chooses the values so that he can arrive at the correct answer for his position. In this calculation, Steve uses the shallowest penetration of hydrothermal waters and the largest (and erroneous) value for albitization. This is not the way one should work if he is interested in truth. Even though he had seen the web page with the present value of albitization (13 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr), he decided to ignore the present argument, set up a strawman and use in his calculation the value which had been in the original letter, the value which had been due to a mathematical error and which I had already corrected. His calculation went like this (always using whatever value favored his position:

Global production  of new oceanic crust         3 km3 (Gaffin, 1987, p.596-611)

times crustal thickness                         5 kilometers  So about 15 cubic

Equals                                          15 cubic km/yr or 15 billion cubic meters

The mass of the basalt is

15 x 10⁹ m³/yr x 2.8 x 10³ kg/m³ = 4200 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr

Here is where he makes two big mistakes. He says that hydrothermal activity is limited to the upper 2 km of the crust and he uses the old value of my albitization (which, as I noted, I had already changed, but he chose to ignore the change so that he could arrive at a more favorable conclusion for his position).

He then repeats the above calculation using 6 x 10⁹ instead of 15 x 10⁹ m³ yielding

1680 x 10¹⁰ kg/yr

Then using the value for albitization which had already been changed (from 34 x 10¹⁰ kg of sodium removed to 13 x 10¹⁰kg) he calculated how much albite must be deposited. Albite is only 8.7% sodium by weight so

34 x 10¹⁰ /.087 = 395 x 10¹⁰ kg of albite.

If two years ago, I had not corrected the mathematical error which led to that 34 x 10¹⁰ value, Steve would have had a correct criticism because this mass represents 23% (395/1680) of the total weight of the new crust added each year.

However, repeating the calculation with the value which was on this web page on Dec. 19th shows:

13 x 10¹⁰ / .087 = 149 x 10¹⁰ kg of albite formed each year.

Is Steve correct that the circulation on the ridge only goes 2 km deep? No. If one speaks only of the ridge crest itself, circulation might only go 2 km deep. Water will circulate down to the depth where faults no longer can exist. This is where the heat changes the rock from brittle to ductile behavior. At that point, the pressure and heat will anneal the fault. As one moves away from the ridge this transition point gets deeper and so water will circulate deeper off crest than it did on crest.

In the picture below the ocean bottom (blue) is infiltrated by water which eventually becomes very hot (red) and water which heats only moderately during its course (green).The flow of the water following the green lines doesn't get as close to the magma chamber as the flow outlined in red. Both on crest and off crest there is a depth where the waters become very hot and so high temperature reactions can occur, only off crest, they occur deeper than on crest. Off crest, the extremely hot upwelling water mixes with more cool water and so comes to the surface at a cooler temperature than the high-temperature water at the ridge crest. Also, because there is more rock to travel through off crest, the circulation is slower. But the important item is that there will be a 350^o C isotherm (line of constant temperature) which parallels the magma chamber. hydrothermal waters will be found all around the magma chamber below the 350^oC isotherm.

Authorities in the field contradict what Steve says about the depth of hydrothermal circulation. This Fall at the University of Hawai'i their oceanography course, OCN 201 was teaching that the circulation went quite deep. Measures writes:

“The depth to which the seawater penetrates below the seafloor is determined by the depth of the source of hot magma. By measuring the silica content of the hydrothermal fluid, it is possible to make some estimates of this depth. In some cases, this has been shown to be as deep as 5 km (3 miles) beneath the bottom of the ocean.”
“The circulation of the seawater can also spread sideways into the older crust. The plates are spreading away from the center and so as you get further away from the ridge axis, the plates are getting older and colder. Some estimates suggest that the circulation may spread as far as 200 km (124 miles) on either side of the ridge axis.” (Internet 6)

Perhaps Steve should inform one of the premier oceanographic schools of their error!

Iceland's government could also benefit from Steve's knowledge. They sit atop the mid-Atlantic ridge and are preparing to drill a 5 km deep hydrothermal well. Why? because they know that the circulation goes deeper than Steve claims. (Internet 2) Keith Louden of Dalhousie University in Halifax Nova Scotia notes correctly that the width and depth of a convection cell must be identical. He says:

“ -observations of high-low heat flow allow us to examine length scales but complication is due to rugged topography. Can only make these observations at a very few ridge crests where larger sediment cover e.g. Galapagos Rift and Juan de Fuca

-convection cells have similar spatial and depth scales (ie Fig. 8C)

-Galapagos observations suggest length scale of 5-10 km Þ circulation throughout all oceanic crust (Figs 10-12)” (Internet 4)

Further evidence of deep circulation comes from earthquake data over the ridge. The caption on figure 2b says:

“The depths of circulation are inferred from considerable earthquake activity (Wilcock et al., 1999) directly beneath the axial valley to depths of nearly four kilometers below the seafloor.” (Internet 5)

So, dismissing this piece of data shopping, we can use 5 km for the circulation depth of the hydrothermal cell. Thus, to complete the repeat of Austin's calculation we find that we only need to have:

149/4200 = 3.5% albite to account for all the removal. However, as noted below, zeolite formation might very well play a bigger role than either Austin or I have previously suggested.

So, Steve is wrong when he claims that the above value for albitization is too large, just as he is wrong in trying to claim an old earth. Steve can't accept the demise of his favorite young-earth argument. Without it he might not have very many arguments for a young earth left.

So, is there any evidence for this absorption being realistic? Yes, but it is difficult to pin down. The sodium content of basalts is highly variable. Primitive basalts are 1.15% sodium by weight (see note and the reference internet 1 below) more evolved basalts have has high as 1.9% sodium. However, some ophiolites show metamorphism and high percentages of sodium. The Longsheng ophiolite was hydrothermally altered and now contains 3.7% sodium.(Li, 1997)

Gillis' paper also discusses the abundant sodium containing zeolites which form at 100^o-300^oC. The paper points out that these are the last minerals to be deposited. Gillis writes:

“A variety of Ca Na zeolites, including laumontite, stibnite, analcite, and natrolite, were identified by x-ray diffraction. These zeolites are late-stage phases in fractures and fault breccias and locally replace leucocratic vein networks.” (Gillis 2002)

Zeolites are deposited late in the hydrothermal cycle and at lower temperatures. Shanks et al, 1995) write:

“Deeper in the upper oceanic crust, downward penetrating fluids may react with lavas and the upper sheeted dikes to produce zeolite-and greenschist-facies mineral assemblages at temperatures between 100-300^o C.”

This is important because the third demand that Steve made was for me to use only the water flow which is higher than 350^o C. which would then restrict the volume of water flowing through the crust and mathematically limit the water available for sodium removal. Steve forgets that there is sodium removal even at the lower temperature. As I said above in the post-script, the hard fact is that sodium is being removed from the hydrothermal waters. It doesn't matter to me if it is being removed by albitization or zeolite formation.

Within a few weeks there will be further revisions as a number of articles I have ordered come in.

2006 Comments

It was pointed out to me on an internet bulletin board that Russ Humphreys had criticized this page on AiG's website at (answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0331.asp)

The italizized part is what Humphreys says, my replies are interspersed.

No, Glen Morton is not at all correct on this, and sincere creationists can continue using sea sodium as an evidence for a young world. Morton showed you an early letter in his correspondence with Steve Austin and me, but not our replies. He also did not show you how he terminated the correspondence.

This is because they refused to grant me permission to publish their replies. Then they criticize me for not publishing their responses. Lets see if they criticize me for posting this.

Morton thinks the mineral albite would form permanently on the ocean floor, taking sodium out of seawater. But what happens is this: indeed albite forms in mid-ocean vents and takes sodium out of the high-temperature sea water. But then when the albite gets into cooler water, it decomposes into the mineral chlorite and releases the same amount of sodium back into the sea water. That is why albite (in any significant amounts) is found only at the mid-ocean ridges and nowhere else. So his “albite sink” would change into a “chlorite source”, and the net effect on sodium in the sea would be zero.

I note that Russ doesn't provide a reference for this. Albite is a volcanic mineral as well. It is NaAlSi3O8. It isn't very soluble in water, as is salt. And indeed it takes years to weather out of a rock. “Albite is the last of the feldspars to crystallize from molten rock” http://www.galleries.com/Albite

And when Russ says that at cooler temperatures in water it is dissolved, he is correct. But what he is NOT telling you and his readers is the RATE at which dissolution occurs. Here is the data

“Historically, dissolution rates have been measured indirectly using powdered materials. Rates from albite powders (pH 9, 80°C, Burch et al., 1993) correspond to a surface normal retreat velocity of 33.2 × 10^-7 nm/sec. In vertical scanning interferometry, this rate is quantified by direct observation of the mineral surface. In our single crystal experiments under otherwise identical conditions, this velocity demands an overall change in surface height of 7.5 nm after 624 hours, if distributed homogeneously.” M. S. BEIG AND A. LUTTGE, “Albite dissolution kinetics: is it the pits?” Goldschmidt Conference Abstracts 2002 A63 (the-conference.com/2002/gold2002/abstracts/Authors_B.pdf)

At such a rate of dissolution, one would need 100 million hours for one meter worth of albite to dissolve. That is 13 million years. That is what Russ ISN'T telling you.

That may seem technical to you. So here is a non-technical way you can judge for yourself whether Morton is right or not: find out whether he has published his “albite sink” theory in a peer-reviewed secular geochemistry journal. The foremost one has the Latin title Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Such journals would be overjoyed to publish his theory if it were correct, because it would solve the 75-year-old problem Steve and I pointed out, the great imbalance between ingoing and outgoing sodium. The secular science establishment would probably award Morton the Nobel Prize for it!

Russ is wrong. They don't give a Nobel for geology. But I would suggest asking Russ why they don't tell you the albite dissolution rate.

Moreover, Morton would be very proud to have his theory published in such a journal and would be sure to mention it prominently on his website. Let me know if you find such a citation there. If you don't, then you know Morton is blowing smoke at you.

If truth is determined by having a theory in a journal, I would ask where precisely is the journal article for Austin and Humphrey's claim that salt proves the earth is young? They have none. Maybe there is a bit of smoke blowing on their side, perchance?

Further References

Gaffin, 1987, American Journal of Science, p. 596-611
K. M. Gillis, “The Rootzone of an Ancient Hydrothermal System Exposed in the Toodos Ophiolite, Cyprus” Journal of Geology, 110(2002):57-74.
Erin Holmstad, “GEOCHEMICAL VARIATION OF THE HORSEPEN MOUNTAIN PLUTON WITHIN THE FRIES-ROCKFISH VALLEY DUCTILE DEFORMATION ZONE” Masters thesis (www.geol.vt.edu/research/gssrs/ms.html) accessed 1-1-02
Internet 1: (depthead.geol.usu.edu/G4500_PDF/45Week5_MORB.pdf) accessed 1-1-02
Internet 2: (www.os.is/IDDP/consortium.shtml) accessed 1-1-02
Internet 3: http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/180_SR/159/159_6.htm accessed 1-1-02
Internet 4: Keith Louden, (www.phys.ocean.dal.ca/~klouden/ocean5110/lect6.html) accessed 1-1-02
Internet 5: (ridge.oce.orst.edu/meetings/Integ_Studies/JdF_ISS_Prop_Fig2.pdf) Salty Dawg High Rise Main Endeavour Mothra 48 ° 00 2000 ...
Internet 6: Chris Measures, “OCN 201 Chemical Oceanography Class Notes, Fall 2001, Hydrothermal Vents on the Seafloor,” Univeristy of Hawai'i Department of Oceanography, (www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses_html/OCN201/Chrisnotes/hyd_ho.pdf) accessed 1-2-02
Li, Xian-Hua, “Geochemistry of the Longsheng Ophiolite from the southern margin of Yangtze Craton, SE China”, Geochemical Journal, Vol. 31 (No. 5), pp. 323-337, 1997