Summary - Oceanic Evidence Of Evolution

The following truths summarize this study:

l. A great discrepancy exists between the three or four

billion year age date derived from radioactive decay data and the

evidence obtainable from the oceans. Either the ocean data is

completely untrustworthy, or there is a question regarding the

dependability of the radioactive dating.

2. If the accumulation of sodium by the weathering of

continental rocks as a part of NaCl in the oceans is used as a

guide for the age of the oceans, a number of unanswerable problems

remain:

a. Some chemicals, (Cl, Br, etc.), must have been a part

of the oceans since the very beginning or must have been

introduced apart from rock weathering.

b. The sediments in the ocean should be much thicker

than actually found.

c. Almost all the other elements which supposedly

weathered while the sodium was weathering are in far too

short supply to allow for a weathering period of 260 million

years, which is required to bring this amount of sodium into

oceans. Therefore, using NaCl as a standard results in an

untenable solution.

3. If accumulation of the other major constituent of the

ocean salts, chlorine, is used as a guide for age dating, then the

following points would obtain:

a. An accumulation period of about 2 to 3 billions of

years would result. This is much closer to the radioactive

age determination. The ocean can then be considered to have

been devoid of chemicals in solution at one time in its

history.

b. This would compound the sediment problem. In this

long period of time the oceans would have filled with

sediment.

c. This also provides no answer for the short supply of

many of the ocean chemicals. This, too, gives an untenable

solution.

4. If the accumulation of the very smallest amounts of

chemicals is used for age dating, the following would obtain:

a. The apparent age of the ocean would be under 1,000

years.

b. The ocean would have begun with essentially the

present compliment of salt and several of the other

chemicals. This solution is untenable on the basis of other

histories.

5. Another conclusion remains as the only plausible one, both

in the light of Biblical statements, as well as in the light of

the evidence obtained from studies of the oceans. That conclusion

is that the ocean and the earth are 13,000 years old. This

conclusion may be supported by the following secular evidences:

a. Elements in the ocean water are not found in a

saturated condition. From this, one could deduce the flow

of chemicals into the ocean was a short-time phenomenon.

b. Proportions of elements found in the water or on the

ocean floor are in no relationship whatsoever to the

proportions found in the continents. Such variables as

resistance to erosion, water transportability, solubility,

and others, over a very short period of weathering accord

with these extreme differences in chemical proportions.

Again, the conclusion seems most logical that the oceans are

very young.

c. The fact that many of the chemicals in ocean solution

are present in amounts that could have accumulated within

the last 1,000 years or less, if all rocks were equally

susceptible to erosion, can be used dramatically to support

a 13,000 year age of the earth. For this is precisely what

would be expected in view of the differences in erosion

resistance, solubility, etc. of the continental rocks.

Elements in excess of those expected within 13,000 years

could have accumulated from easily eroded rocks, whereas far

less than that expected in 13,000 years of history would

have accumulated from very hard rocks.

d. The concept of a very young earth is supported also

by existence of a thin layer of sediments on the ocean

floor. This is especailly true when consideration is given

to the cataclysmic worldwide flood of Noah's day. That

phenomenon alone could have caused erosion of enormous

quantities of sediments for ocean solution and deposition.

In fact, impact of a worldwide flood upon the oceans would

have been so severe that no accurate estimate of time can

ever be derived from ocean chemicals.

e. The fact that certain salts such as NaCl are in such

abundance in ocean solution could be interpreted to mean

that they have been present in essentally their present

quantities from the very beginning.

The all-important conclusion remains, however, that even

without considering the effect of the flood on the oceans, under

no circumstance may the ocean evidence be used to deduce an age of

millions of years. Then, when any recognition is given to the

Noachian flood sediments which must be subtracted from the

elements in the oceans, the contention for a very young ocean may

be stated even more emphatically. The 13,000 year date of the

Bible appears to be the only true alternative to popular concepts

of a very old earth.