Oceans, Nickel, and the Young Earth

By -
There are several indicators for the young earth that do not get a whole heap of attention. Creationists show that, using the assumptions of deep time proponents, the results do not reach the number of Darwin years that they require. One of these is ocean salinity, and a similar procedure is used when calculating the amount of nickel in the oceans.
Some nickel comes from meteorites, and it goes to the oceans. Nickel concentrations reveal that the earth is young.
 Willamette Meteorite on display at the American Museum of Natural History. It has 7.62% nickel.
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / "Dante Alighieri" (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Nickel is one of those elements that are essential to life, but too much can be dangerous, and the oceans would be toxic in 850,000 years. There is supposedly more of it under the earth's crust than on it, and nickel can arrive in meteorites (and meteor dust), which can have mixtures of iron and nickel. Then it is transported by water into the oceans, where figures show that nickel concentrations can be used to testify for a young earth — again, by using the assumptions of secularists. Kind of like getting shot with their own gun, huh?
Nickel (Ni) turns out to be another mineral that points to a young age for the oceans. Very small levels of nickel are essential to life, but higher levels are toxic. The current background level of nickel in sea water is 0.228–0.693 parts per billion (PPB). The rate at which nickel is entering the ocean can be determined from fresh water studies, which indicate that dissolved nickel in ‘pure’ waters ranges from 1–3 PPB. While water in industrialized areas has a higher concentration of nickel, for this calculation the lower figure will be used.
To read the entire article and see the images, click on "Nickel concentration indicates young oceans".
This short video has no sound:

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more