1. There is not enough sediment or sodium in the ocean.
Humprheys' claim:
"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."
As far as the sediment argument goes, his claim is simply a result of misinformation. The thickness of sediment on the ocean floor varies, and is thus consistent with the age of the ocean floor. For example, the thickness of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge is zero. This means it is a place where new ocean crust is forming. Further out, there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others. What this means is that the sediment gets thicker and thicker as we move away from the sea floor spreading zone, The farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get. that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening.
Elaborating on the correlating evidence, the age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways. These include measured radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and correlates with increased age of the sea floor.
Also, in 1967, Dan McKenzie did some mathematical calculations that indicated that an ocean floor, spreading at a few inches per year from a rift which adds new material, would cool and contract. As it did this, it would sink deeper into the mantle as it contracted. "The process is so undeviating that there is a striking relationship between the age of the sea floor and the depth of water covering it." (Miller, 1983, p.122)
Several years later, in 1971, John Sclater and his students at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, tested this theory. They gathered up all the data they could on the age and depth of the Pacific sea floor. The study confirmed that the increasing depths of the older portions of the Pacific floor were a result of thermal contraction. Thus, plate tectonics even explains the basic facts about the depth of the Pacific. In other words, McKenzie’s theory was proven true. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof21)
As far as the sodium claims go, their argument is a miscalculation of something that is a well known fact. Whether it is intentional, or ignorance, they greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. For some reason, the leave out the sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they don’t even consider numerous others mechanisms which are minor when looked at individually, but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
The common knowledge among scientist who study the ocean floor is that a detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed This means that within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed. What this means is that the exact measure of sodium that we see is expected and is a result of the turnover rate, which means there is little build up. For more on the flawed calculations of Humpreys, go here.
2. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Humphreys' claim:
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 yearsold.15
Humphreys' claim is based on a theory that was proposed in the 1970’s by Thomas Barnes, and has since then been thoroughly debunked. Many studies have shown that the earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied at times in intensity and reversed in polarity many times during earth’s history (see J.S. Gee, et al. 2000, Nature 408: 827-832). This is consistent and fits very well with the current models and geophysical evidence of the earth’s interior.
In one study (Gibbeons, et al. 2006, Science 312: 900-902) it was proven that the measurements of magnetic field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840. Thus, the variation in the magnetic field is fairly recent, thus indicating that the fields polarity is probably reversing again.
As far as Humpreys' “historical” argument goes, empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. It is true that an exponential curve can fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits much better.
However, the most fundamental problem of Barnes work (and Humphreys) is his model of the earth’s interior is obsolete. He viewed the earth’s core a a spherical conductor that is undergoing the simple decay of an electrical current.
The evidence supports what is known as Elsasser's dynamo model. In this model, the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes tried to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Finally, though Humprheys mentions both dipole and non-dipole, he, as Barnes before him, measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field. The problem with this is that the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary, while the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged. (For more, go here and here.
3. Biological material decays too fast.
Humphreys' claim:
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
Again, this is outdated research and misinformation. The agreed upon date for mitochondrial Eve is around 177,000 years ago. For more on mitochondrial Eve, go here, here, and here.
Furthermore, when things die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The rate at which this information decays depends on several of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, while in other conditions, it will persist for as long as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist is somewhere in the middle. It depends on it’s physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C. If these are the factors, then it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels (see source here).
As far as the dinosaur claim goes, the soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil that were recovered in 2005 have since been shown to be a mistake, supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.
4. Radiometric dating
Here Answers in Genesis tries to argue that the modern use of radiometric dating is unreliable, and that it actually supports a young earth.
The explanation of how this dating works and the different types involved is too long to explain in detail here. To state things briefly, none of the criticisms in this article or advanced by the RATE team have any scientific merit. The RATE team, their essays, and their science has all been proven faulty. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method. For more articles on the subject, go here and here. Given that this is one of the most attacked areas by YECs, I would encourage you to read through some of these articles.
The common factor that we see in YEC science is twofold: 1) they attack outdated research, and 2) the only present and interact with bits and pieces of the total findings and arguments of modern science.
As Christians, we should want all the facts so that we can make an honest assessment of things. This has been my goal; to expose you to all of the facts and let you make up your own mind. In our next article we will look at more YEC claims, including the travel of light, dinosaurs, and the geological
column. This next article is the one that will be relevant to those with younger children.