What salt experiment did creation scientists do to prove evolution is not true?

Evolution is supposed to have happened millions of years ago, but creation scientists have used salt experiments to prove the earth isn't that old. Can you give me more detail about this?What salt experiment did creation scientists do to prove evolution is not true?
Derke got this one right.





Using salinity levels as a clock failed for scientists and for creationists. Plate tectonics cause ground to shift, water evaporates, and you wind up with things like salt flats, taking huge amounts of salt out of the oceans. Volcanic activity puts some salts back in. Salinity in the Paleozoic era is thought to have been much higher than in the later periods based on sedimentary studies.





So, it's not constant, so it can't be used as a clock.





But if you ever want an actual example of a pseudo-scientific creationist argument, go to answersingenesis. No matter how silly or how thoroughly disproved an idea is, it is still posted as fact on AIG.





http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation鈥?/a>What salt experiment did creation scientists do to prove evolution is not true?
Their experiments took place over 50 years ago and didn't PROVE anything of the sort. The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years and the earliest undisputed fossils date from about 2.0 billion years. Earlier 'fossils' from the Warrawoona group of rocks in Australia have been dated back to 3.4 bya but that these are genuinely fossils is a matter of dispute. Creationists - for motives known only to themselves - seem to have become more desperate to undermine the evolutionary principles underpinning serious scientific thinking and are making themselves look more absurd in the process.
It wasn't an experiment. It was a theory. It arises from a Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) study examining salt levels in the ocean. Knowing the volume of the ocean and the level of increasing salinity, the annual input of salt is presently 450 million tons per year. They then subtracted 450 million tons of salt per year until the oceans would be pure water. Using this calculation the age of the oceans would be 42 million years, maximum.





Whoever tried to misinterpret the Sandia study needs to go back to his grade school mathematics class. If the present input of salt is 450 million tons per year, taking 450 million tons per year away just leaves the ocean with its original salt content. It does not reduce the ocean to fresh water over any imagined length of time. After all, X + 450 - 450 = X, right?


The ';salt in the ocean'; argument of Creationism has been conclusively refuted since at least 1954, when V. M. Goldschmidt (in ';Geochemistry';) published the results of a study that proves that the salt content of the oceans is in stasis.


In addition, Creationists themselves have discounted the ';salt in the ocean'; argument since at least 1966. In that year, Creationist Melvin Cook wrote in his book ';Prehistory and Earth Models'; that ...





';The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans.';
Evolution is continuous and is taking place today. The peppered moth which was a speckled cream colour changed to black during the industrial revolution as the dark surfaces where is landed made it visible to predators. The black variant then became predominant and the species changed colour. Later when the air was cleaned up the colour reverted to cream speckles as the surface became clear.





Good answer above about the salt theory
I don't know, Creation Scientists are completely nuts. I'm a conservative Christian myself, I affirm the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, but I definitely believe in modern day science. I see no conflict between evolution and the Bible.





I'd say, stay away from Young Earth Creationism. It involves a lot of brainwashing and self inflicted deceit.
';creation scientist'; is an oxymoron and results from experiments by real scientists never ';prove'; anything. They either indicate a certain hypothesis is true or it is not, but it is an indication, not ';proof';.
The experiment is described on this website: http://churchfun.com/2008/06/21/soil-experiment-growing-pinto-beans/
science and creationism does not mix well.
ask kent hovind





oh nvm hes in jail