Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rosevax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan
From: hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 38)
Message-ID: <186@rosevax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 19:08:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.186
Posted: Tue Jul 16 19:08:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 07:41:56 EDT
References: <396@iham1.UUCP> <597@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 34

>In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>> 
>>        73.  The rate at which elements  such  as  copper,  gold,  tin,
>>             lead,  silicon,  mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering
>>             the oceans is very rapid  when  compared  with  the  small
>>             quantities of these elements already in the oceans.  There
>>             is no known means by which large amounts of these elements
>>             can  precipitate  out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans
>>             must be very much younger than a million years.
>
>Because you are ignorant, you are able to conclude that?  Amazing.
>Know-nothingism at its finest.    (***sarcasm***)

Someone earlier said that their geologist friends could come up with
several good explanations for this (I missed saving the post because
I wasn't incensed enough to reply at that time.)  But talk about 
assumptions of constant rates!  I find constant radioactive decay rates
much easier to swallow than constant rates of oceanic deposition OF ELEMENTS
WHICH MAN FINDS USEFUL, MINES, AND DISCARDS IN MASSIVE QUANTITES!  Not 
even a Creationist can claim that the rate of uncovering of these 
elements by nature (pre-industrialization) is the same or close to the
rate at which we extract them from the earth.

I've been tolerating Kukuk's postings because they generate a lot of
interesting rebuttal and discussion, largely in areas I know a bit about
but always enjoy hearing more.  But when he posts an argument which is
as obviously falacious as this one (even *I* can see it :-) ), I wonder
if I should even bother with the replies. (I skip the original posts, 
since the duplication in rebuttals is virtually complete......)

-- 
Andy Hogan   Rosemount, Inc.   Mpls MN
path: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan
Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.