[DB 1506-1508 (15-19,42-68); OAB²] By citing measurements of the amounts of various chemical compounds³ in the oceans, and measurements of the rate at which rivers are adding those compounds to the oceans, it is claimed that a maximum age for the oceans can be derived. The answer here is twofold. Firstly, processes that remove these compounds from the oceans generally are not adequately accounted for. Secondly, because these measurements are difficult to carry out, their accuracy is not terribly high, so that, when removal processes are considered, a state of equilibrium is either within the margin of error or very close to it (Some recent young-Earth studies attempt to show that the claim is still valid even when removal processes are accounted for; however, overly optimistic assumptions about groundwater addition and statistical precision account for the remaining discrepency). Therefore, this claim is both a One-Sided Equation and an Unexplained Mystery. There are many processes that take salt out of seawater, including sea spray, high-temperature alteration of brine into albite at undersea hydrothermal vents, and deposition to the ocean floor. Precipitates on the sea floor will be swept clear periodically by plate tectonic subduction. It is also important to realize that there is a great deal that we do not understand about the deep ocean floor, due to the obvious difficulties in studying it, and it is likely that there are other important processes going on there that have yet to be discovered. For that reason, it is not very responsible to speak as if we knew for sure that there is no other process removing these compounds from seawater. D.R. Humphreys states that "as far as we know, the remainder [of these chemicals] simply accumulates in the ocean" (Creation: Ex Nihilo, v.13, no.1, p.31 (1991)). However, it is just as true (and much more responsible) to say that, as far as we know, the processes exist on the ocean floor that are keeping the concentrations of these chemicals in equilibrium, but we have not yet rigorously measured them.

 

Another important point is that several of these "dating methods" published in young-Earth references give ages that are impossibly young from any perspective. For example, if this line of reasoning were valid, the amount of aluminum in the ocean would prove that the Earth was only 100 years old! In fact, if you look closely, the claims concerning Al, Pb, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Th, and W all "prove" Earth ages less of than 2,000 years! Are we to conclude that the death and resurrection of Christ occurred before the Earth was created? Obviously this is not true. The failure to give "Earth-age limits" that are reasonable even from a young-Earth perspective demonstrates that this line of reasoning cannot be valid: processes which remove salts from the ocean have not been adequately taken into account.

 

Note regarding oceanic abundances claim:

 

One point of concern is the number of times that this claim is repeated in many young-Earth references. The claim that "the ocean has fewer chemicals in it than we'd expect if it were old" is really only one single piece of "evidence for a young-Earth". However, in both DB and OAB, this claim is repeated dozens of times, each time using a different chemical substance ("There's not enough Al...", "There's not enough Pb...", etc.). The resulting effect of this is that the total number of claims on a list of "evidences" is inflated. For example, since this claim is repeated 32 times in The Defender's Bible, it almost doubles the total number of claims in that reference. A few other pieces of "young-Earth evidence" are also repeated multiple times (each time with slight variation), with the effect of increasing the total number of claims, but none on as large a scale as the oceanic abundances. Of course, this would not be a topic of any concern whatsoever, except for if the fact that many young-Earth publications do make a big deal about the number of pieces of evidence that they claim support a young Earth. The argument is often made that "The number of pieces of evidence supporting a young Earth is greater than the number supporting an old Earth." There are other responses to that argument, but it is very important to realize that, if nothing else, the artificial inflation of the numbers by repeating the oceanic abundances claim renders this argument invalid.