Salt in the oceans... did he realize he just made a wonderful pro-evolution argument?
You have constantly rising salt levels in the sea. There are fish in the sea that are adapted to this exact level of salt we have today. Once upon a time there was no/less salt but the same fish.
Therefore: If there is constant change the fish must change accordingly aka adapt aka evolve.
(con't) "rewind the clock" and expect to get an accurate age of the ocean. Organisms can take dissolved inorganic materials out of the water, and they also precipitate on the ocean floor (they're known as hydrogenous sediments). And I haven't even started college yet.... booyaka!
(cont'd) we know there are places on the ocean floor (the oceanic ridge is a major example) where mantle material is expunged into the ocean, this is more likely to be the source. ALSO, the ocean has not grown saltier since we first began to measure its salinity. Does that mean that God has paused salinity increase to fool us? No. The ocean maintains chemical equilibrium, so that when new "salts" are dissolved in it, others are taken out (look up residence time), so you can't mathematically
Another point: if the rivers were responsible for the ocean's salinity, you'd expect ocean water to be more like "concentrated" river water. However, this is not the case. River water is a dilute solution of calcium and bicarbonate ions, while ocean water's principal ions are sodium and chloride. Also, the ocean's magnesium content is lower than you'd expect if river water was the sole contributor. The composition of the upper mantle more closely matches that of the ocean, and the fact that
my favorite example is aluminum. using the same "logic" as he dose to say sodium would only take at most 60 million years also says that there is an upper limit for sodium at less than 200 years. so forget the accounts of your grandparents there was never an 1800's.
I used a similar logic to that when dealing with some creatard who claimed that the Earth's plates moved at a super fast rate in the past.
I discovered that, by their logic, the Mayflower story/Christopher Columbus story never happened, as the Atlantic Ocean did not open up until 1774. (yes, this was calculated using THEIR techniques).
in conclusion: young earth creationism is bullshit.
Sorry, I didn't mean nuclear stability, what I meant was that as it would have a charge of +2, would it not immediately form an ionic bond with another atom, thus not being able to exist in that state on its own?
Thanks for explaining this to me, I can't believe I might learn something from a creationist!
PS. I know you are certainly not a creationist, but the gimp in the video raised this point...
Knowing very little behind the science of this... wouldn't higher levels of salt in the ocean mean higher levels of salt being released by different means? Likewise, if the atmosphere had much more helium in it wouldn't a lot more helium escape in a given amount of time? It seems logical to me that both of these systems would be self regulating.
Maybe he made the same kind of error in his calculations when Hovind committed tax fraud over a few cents.
Great refutation. In their "calculations", they always assume that no factors change the flow rates of particles in the Earth's systems when it is the exact opposite of any rational naturalists' views. To take the example of salt, where did limestone come from, then? It is impossible for limestone to form when there are no salts-not necessarily NaCl-in the ocean.
I know; as I said, it was not necessary to go into the specific science behind his calculations. I felt it was more interesting to prove how his calculations were meaningless without even going into that. After all, those arguments have been debunked plenty of times already. Hearing the same thing over and over again is not that interesting, so I took a different approach.
I don't know too much about Helium in the atmosphere but he is dead wrong about salt spray being the biggest factor in salt depletions. Microorganisms like diatoms absorb minerals out of the ocean and when they die the minerals are trapped and accumulate.
Even reading popular science will refute what Surtees says. This what Bill Bryson says in "A Brief History of Everything" (Ch 18: The Bounding Main, pg 280): Geophyscists realized that the (deep-sea) vents were acting much like the filters in a fish tank. As water is taken down into the crust, salts are stripped from it, and eventually clean water is blown out again. The process is not swift-it can take up to 10 million years to clean an ocean-but it is marvelously efficient.
the majority of helium comes from the sun in the form of alpha particles(helium nuclei). and salt is deposited in massive amounts in Idk places like the salt lakes of the west.
Here's my litmus test for anyone who talks "scientifically": If someone says "evolution" predicts (or hopes for) any non-living phenomena (such as ocean salt content), I can safely dismiss anything they say "scientifically" out of hand.
Soooooooo, "must be less than 40 million" is consistent with "must be 6000"? Uh oh. Excuse me for a second. My brain just slipped out onto the floor. I honestly never got taught that equivalence in maths classes.
I don't even have a degree, and even I can see why Surtees' arguments (in the previous vids too) are absolute tripe. Very Hovindish - all of them.
He has a real PhD? You're shitting me aren't you? You have to actually be shitting me......
"Soooooooo, "must be less than 40 million" is consistent with "must be 6000"? Uh oh. Excuse me for a second. My brain just slipped out onto the floor. I honestly never got taught that equivalence in maths classes."
His calculation has a margin of error of -666,667%! Lol.
"He has a real PhD? You're shitting me aren't you? You have to actually be shitting me...... "
It's real, according to the University of Reading.
The sodium in ocean water is absorbed in the middle ocean ridges due to the process known as spreading and hydrothermal venting. Sea water seeps through rifts and cracks in ocean floor. Hot basaltic magma (which is sodium depleted) absorbs Na+ ions from the water. This forms the hydrothermal altered basalts building the ocean floor. The rate of sodium input/output is roughly even and stable from at least 450 mln years. Probably is as old as the process of ocean floor spreading.
Just like population growth, we know for a fact that the amount of water in the oceans was not constant, nor is there a constant rate of deposition... i have the figures on my other computer, i'll get back to you later in the week.
Sounds like a 'Hovind' follower. His PhD is legit but he must be somewhat interested in keeping his fellow fundies happy and inviting him to speak for cash.
His arguments make me worry for those who are not able to think critically for themselves. Anyway, I really liked how you countered these points. I don't understand his resistance to logic.
I'm going to guess that sea spray is not the primary method by which sodium leaves the oceans. Since sea spray falls NEAR the coastline it seems like most of it should eventually be washed back INTO the ocean by freshwater rain!
BTW, if one uses this "logic" on other metallic ions in seawater it is possible to come up with "maximum" ages of less than a thousand years! I'm sure that Mr. Surtees knows this.
I did let him no this privately. He had nothing to say accept his calculations were only for the purpose of pointing out that an age of billions of years is incorrect.
Yes, the aluminum diffusion rates tell us that the seas did not exist until the early 1900's!
I can't believe he's using Halley's Salt Clock. What a load of fail. I notice he also uses the same presentation template is Spike Psarris. Creationists are not very creative with computers it seems ;)
Lol. Well, it is the only PowerPoint 98 template that looks kind of "spacy".
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't saying that the oceans are 6,000 to 40,000,000 years old a margin of error of about 666,667%? What's the limit for a margin error in an actual scientific publication?
Technically, I don't think there is a limit on the margin of error in your data you can get away with in a paper. But if you attempted to publish data with a 666,667% margin of error without addressing it in some way (and damn, you better address it like you were the very deity of error addressing), the peer review would shoot you down in seconds.
I suppose if you're reporting on the failure of an experimental method to obtain useful data, then you might get away with it.
I would go for....hmmm..kinda difficult question...they are close you know....ok this will be a guess: lower? ;) great video. And all your others too, love the channel. Keep it up!
Salt in the oceans... did he realize he just made a wonderful pro-evolution argument?
You have constantly rising salt levels in the sea. There are fish in the sea that are adapted to this exact level of salt we have today. Once upon a time there was no/less salt but the same fish.
Therefore: If there is constant change the fish must change accordingly aka adapt aka evolve.
mehja1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from JRChadwick
(con't) "rewind the clock" and expect to get an accurate age of the ocean. Organisms can take dissolved inorganic materials out of the water, and they also precipitate on the ocean floor (they're known as hydrogenous sediments). And I haven't even started college yet.... booyaka!
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
(cont'd) we know there are places on the ocean floor (the oceanic ridge is a major example) where mantle material is expunged into the ocean, this is more likely to be the source. ALSO, the ocean has not grown saltier since we first began to measure its salinity. Does that mean that God has paused salinity increase to fool us? No. The ocean maintains chemical equilibrium, so that when new "salts" are dissolved in it, others are taken out (look up residence time), so you can't mathematically
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
Another point: if the rivers were responsible for the ocean's salinity, you'd expect ocean water to be more like "concentrated" river water. However, this is not the case. River water is a dilute solution of calcium and bicarbonate ions, while ocean water's principal ions are sodium and chloride. Also, the ocean's magnesium content is lower than you'd expect if river water was the sole contributor. The composition of the upper mantle more closely matches that of the ocean, and the fact that
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
we all know that water and gases of deferent sort is as old as the universe even minerals i guess the big owning doh!
okainuz 1 year ago
there are properly 1000 of scientist you can show us that is talking gibberish
okainuz 1 year ago
my favorite example is aluminum. using the same "logic" as he dose to say sodium would only take at most 60 million years also says that there is an upper limit for sodium at less than 200 years. so forget the accounts of your grandparents there was never an 1800's.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
I used a similar logic to that when dealing with some creatard who claimed that the Earth's plates moved at a super fast rate in the past.
I discovered that, by their logic, the Mayflower story/Christopher Columbus story never happened, as the Atlantic Ocean did not open up until 1774. (yes, this was calculated using THEIR techniques).
in conclusion: young earth creationism is bullshit.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
An alpha particle is a helium nucleus. When it slows down and regains its two electrons, it becomes a helium molecule.
GratedTopping 2 years ago
hehe he called helium a molecule
foolish person
and it doesnt need electrons apparently
helium without electrons = alpha radiation
ajgrovery 2 years ago 2
2:35 - "Helium has a couple of electrons, well, variable, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ELECTRONS"!
This man claims to be a scientist?
D3ltaStar 2 years ago 3
He is not completely wrong here. A Helium nucleus is still helium even without electrons. It is also called an Alpha particle.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
Really? Is is stable? Surely it can't exist for long in that state as it would be positively charged?
Oh well, every day's a school day! That's why I don't give science lectures or make videos about it...
D3ltaStar 2 years ago
Yes, the electrons have no effect on the atom's stability. That depends on the particles that make up the nucleus.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
Sorry, I didn't mean nuclear stability, what I meant was that as it would have a charge of +2, would it not immediately form an ionic bond with another atom, thus not being able to exist in that state on its own?
Thanks for explaining this to me, I can't believe I might learn something from a creationist!
PS. I know you are certainly not a creationist, but the gimp in the video raised this point...
D3ltaStar 2 years ago
Helium is an atom!!! x(
MisterDax 3 years ago
talkorigins has provided explantions for both these claims.
justintempler 3 years ago 3
Yep, very good ones. That is why I did not feel it necessary to repeat them.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
On the earth there are 128 900 000 births each year and 53 400 000. deaths. that means that each year the population grows 75 500 000
World population is now 6 800 000 000.
6 800 000 000 divided by 75 500 000 = 90
I just proved by creationist standards that humans are only 90 years on the Earth
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
There should be more salt in the seas then there is now, therefore, God exists. Checkmate, atheists!
adeadlysniper 3 years ago 2
Knowing very little behind the science of this... wouldn't higher levels of salt in the ocean mean higher levels of salt being released by different means? Likewise, if the atmosphere had much more helium in it wouldn't a lot more helium escape in a given amount of time? It seems logical to me that both of these systems would be self regulating.
sfg911 3 years ago
"Marc Surtees is either extremely foolish or intellectually dishonest."
Actually, he might be both.... Stupidity doesn't necessarily exclude dishonesty
gildor67 3 years ago 2
Yea because sodium really deposits at a constant rate allthough geological time, this guy is insane lol.
NoSz4 3 years ago
Maybe he made the same kind of error in his calculations when Hovind committed tax fraud over a few cents.
Great refutation. In their "calculations", they always assume that no factors change the flow rates of particles in the Earth's systems when it is the exact opposite of any rational naturalists' views. To take the example of salt, where did limestone come from, then? It is impossible for limestone to form when there are no salts-not necessarily NaCl-in the ocean.
thescaryworker 3 years ago
This doesnt actually go into why he is wrong regarding the salt and helium... IE, the science of his wrongness.
Saktoth 3 years ago
I know; as I said, it was not necessary to go into the specific science behind his calculations. I felt it was more interesting to prove how his calculations were meaningless without even going into that. After all, those arguments have been debunked plenty of times already. Hearing the same thing over and over again is not that interesting, so I took a different approach.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
I don't know too much about Helium in the atmosphere but he is dead wrong about salt spray being the biggest factor in salt depletions. Microorganisms like diatoms absorb minerals out of the ocean and when they die the minerals are trapped and accumulate.
snakeguy76 3 years ago
rajeevvp 3 years ago
the majority of helium comes from the sun in the form of alpha particles(helium nuclei). and salt is deposited in massive amounts in Idk places like the salt lakes of the west.
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
Here's my litmus test for anyone who talks "scientifically": If someone says "evolution" predicts (or hopes for) any non-living phenomena (such as ocean salt content), I can safely dismiss anything they say "scientifically" out of hand.
IlGreven 3 years ago
Soooooooo, "must be less than 40 million" is consistent with "must be 6000"? Uh oh. Excuse me for a second. My brain just slipped out onto the floor. I honestly never got taught that equivalence in maths classes.
I don't even have a degree, and even I can see why Surtees' arguments (in the previous vids too) are absolute tripe. Very Hovindish - all of them.
He has a real PhD? You're shitting me aren't you? You have to actually be shitting me......
dutchroll 3 years ago
"Soooooooo, "must be less than 40 million" is consistent with "must be 6000"? Uh oh. Excuse me for a second. My brain just slipped out onto the floor. I honestly never got taught that equivalence in maths classes."
His calculation has a margin of error of -666,667%! Lol.
"He has a real PhD? You're shitting me aren't you? You have to actually be shitting me...... "
It's real, according to the University of Reading.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
The sodium in ocean water is absorbed in the middle ocean ridges due to the process known as spreading and hydrothermal venting. Sea water seeps through rifts and cracks in ocean floor. Hot basaltic magma (which is sodium depleted) absorbs Na+ ions from the water. This forms the hydrothermal altered basalts building the ocean floor. The rate of sodium input/output is roughly even and stable from at least 450 mln years. Probably is as old as the process of ocean floor spreading.
A11ex 3 years ago
Such pwnage is evidence of a clear-thinking mind.
5 stars good sir^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Just like population growth, we know for a fact that the amount of water in the oceans was not constant, nor is there a constant rate of deposition... i have the figures on my other computer, i'll get back to you later in the week.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
You deserve more subscribers.
Quionic7 3 years ago
Sounds like a 'Hovind' follower. His PhD is legit but he must be somewhat interested in keeping his fellow fundies happy and inviting him to speak for cash.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
He'd probably explain the salt differential with the flood theory. yawn.
Ephemerance 3 years ago
You're great!
besmyra 3 years ago
Yes. I am.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
His arguments make me worry for those who are not able to think critically for themselves. Anyway, I really liked how you countered these points. I don't understand his resistance to logic.
BrawnBrock 3 years ago
50-years-old and the holder of a legitimate Ph.D...
We're screwed.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
I'm going to guess that sea spray is not the primary method by which sodium leaves the oceans. Since sea spray falls NEAR the coastline it seems like most of it should eventually be washed back INTO the ocean by freshwater rain!
BTW, if one uses this "logic" on other metallic ions in seawater it is possible to come up with "maximum" ages of less than a thousand years! I'm sure that Mr. Surtees knows this.
machomaas 3 years ago
I did let him no this privately. He had nothing to say accept his calculations were only for the purpose of pointing out that an age of billions of years is incorrect.
Yes, the aluminum diffusion rates tell us that the seas did not exist until the early 1900's!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Great video.
I can't believe he's using Halley's Salt Clock. What a load of fail. I notice he also uses the same presentation template is Spike Psarris. Creationists are not very creative with computers it seems ;)
AndromedasWake 3 years ago 2
Lol. Well, it is the only PowerPoint 98 template that looks kind of "spacy".
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't saying that the oceans are 6,000 to 40,000,000 years old a margin of error of about 666,667%? What's the limit for a margin error in an actual scientific publication?
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Technically, I don't think there is a limit on the margin of error in your data you can get away with in a paper. But if you attempted to publish data with a 666,667% margin of error without addressing it in some way (and damn, you better address it like you were the very deity of error addressing), the peer review would shoot you down in seconds.
I suppose if you're reporting on the failure of an experimental method to obtain useful data, then you might get away with it.
BiggusRobbicus 3 years ago
I would go for....hmmm..kinda difficult question...they are close you know....ok this will be a guess: lower? ;) great video. And all your others too, love the channel. Keep it up!
jzuidema 3 years ago
Great video. Nephi is retarded.
soulinite 3 years ago
Where does he pull his numbers from? Out of his ass?
stefzula 3 years ago 2
"Out of his ass?"
Seems like it.
sockpuppetsfromhell 3 years ago
The way helium enters our atmosphere is very complex and not yet completely understood.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
I hear ya, I certainly don't know everything about this. What I do know is that guy you featured is pulling his math out of his ass.
sockpuppetsfromhell 3 years ago 2