Adam When?

    We are certain that the Bible is accurate, authoritative, and trustworthy in every field of knowledge whether that be theological, historical, scientific, or any other. It gives us a very definite and precise chronological timetable that begins with the creation of this world and its first man Adam and covers the great historical events of the first 11,000 years of history. The evidence produced by the secular record is not at all in disagreement with the sacred record and the sacred record helps in a great fashion to place the secular record in proper perspective. Because the Bible is true and accurate in its accounts of people, places, anytime, it can help to distinguish between what is true and false about the secular viewpoints.

    Data from the observable universe concerning the history of the earth is becoming increasingly available as men search out the secrets of the universe. Does this evidence demonstrate that in spite of all that we have said thus far, the world must be far older than 13,000 years? Can we really expect to find correlation between the Biblical and secular records if we are going to insist on the literal interpretation of the creation story and the flood account? Is the evidence that shows that this world is billions of years old so conclusive that it is hardly worthwhile to expect complete reconciliation between the Bible and science?

    To answer these questions, we shall examine some of the available evidence. It must be emphasized that because this world is under the bondage of decay, and much of the record is confused and obliterated by storms, floods, decay, fire, pestilence, and so forth, we cannot expect to reconstruct the history of the world in a complete and detailed manner. But from the secular record we should at least be able to obtain some indication of the timetable of the past.

    Two areas of study seem to be quite fruitful in contributing information toward an answer to the question of the age of the earth. One study concerns the oceans; the other study concerns radioactive decay. Because of their importance in the development of modern

views of the earth's age, they must be honestly faced. Therefore, we shall study the oceans and radioactive dating.


The Oceans: A Key to the Past

    In an earlier generation, scientists suggested that the oceans might be of real help in determining the age of the earth. As they thought about the problem of the earth's antiquity, their eyes were directed to the seas. After all, the seas completely surround the land mass and thus receive the output of the rivers that flow into them. The rivers carry sediment and chemicals in solution which have eroded from the continents. Scientists have assumed, therefore, that most of the chemical composition of ocean water is derived from the weathering of rocks. Sverdrup, et al., writes:

According to present theories, most of the solid materials dissolved in the sea originated from the weathering of the crust of the earth.1

    H. Kienen wrote in 1965:

Apart from meteoric dust and gaseous matter, the ultimate sources of all sediments are igneous and metamorphic rocks.2

    Mr. Kuenen continued:

Ground water containing dissolved matter including silica, calcium, sodium, iron, magnesium, phosphorous, humic acids, etc., reaches the sea by way of rivers, or directly by seepage along the shore. Apart from gases, including carbon dioxide, derived directly from the atmosphere, this is the main source of dissolved matter in the sea water. . . A minor contribution comes from volcanic exhalations and from the expulsion of sea water trapped between the grains of the older marine sediments.3

    Thus, today, scientists expect that the chemical content of the oceans should tell us much about the history of the earth. Because salt, NaCl is the most abundant constituent of sea water and because both Na and Cl are present in the rocks, it was supposed that a knowledge of the amount of NaCl in the seas compared with the amount entering the seas each year by the weathering of the land would give a close approximation of the age of the earth. An earth age of about 100 million years was estimated by earlier scientists by following this assumption.

    Then came other dating methods. By radioactive decay procedures, it was decided that the earth must be some four and a half billion years old. The 100 million years established by the ocean evidence was decisively rejected in favor of the longer radioactive age which provided a much more acceptable timetable for the presumed evolutionary developments. We now hear very little from researchers investigating the content of sea waters as far as total earth dating is concerned.

    But the oceans are still with us. Since this world presumably has been around for more than four billion years, and since during much of this time, oceans as well as continents have existed, certain relationships and equilibriums must exist between the continents and the oceans. The earlier scientists' contention of an earth-ocean time relationship should still be valid. Assuming that the present abilities in nature are a key to the past, we should be able to examine the relationship of the materials of the continents to those of the oceans and in this way arrive at some kind of a timetable for geological history.


Ocean Water Suggests a Time Schedule for History

    As we have noted, geologists arrived at the conclusion that the chemical composition of the sea water and the ocean floor sediments are principally a product of the weathering of continental rocks. If this weathering of rocks was a short-time phenomenon, the sea water could be expected to contain far different proportions of one element relative to others than those proportions found within the average rocks of the continents. This is due to the fad that some rocks erode more easily than others and therefore, these easily-erodable chemicals should begin to be most abundant in sea water. The difference in relative chemical proportions would also be due to other variables, such as the fact that some elements are not as readily transportable by rivers and ocean currents as others and some are less solvable in water than others.

    Nevertheless, if the time of erosion were long enough, the elements in the sea water and on the sea floor should approach an accurate reflection of the chemical content of the continental masses. For then even the hardest of rocks would be eroded, and even the least transportable minerals ultimately would be carried by the rivers to the sea. Thus, when scientists talk about millions of years we would

suspect that on a world-wide basis the proportion of one element in the sea water and on the sea floor to all other elements in the same environment should approximate the ratio of that element to all other elements in the continental masses, for in a very general way all the mass must somehow be conserved. For example, if the percentage of silicon in the continental masses is 27.5%, then if the oceans were old enough, we would also expect the total of all the silicon in the ocean water and on the ocean floor to approach 27.5%.

    Furthermore, if we could know something about the total quantities of various elements in the seas and sea floor, and if we could know the approximate rate of world-wide erosion, we could estimate the length of time required to bring the elements into the ocean. This in turn should give us an approximate age for earth.

    Fortunately, scientists have rather accurately determined the chemical composition of both the sea water and the land masses, Sverdrup et al. have prepared a table (Table I)⁴ that shows the amounts of various chemicals that should have entered the oceans during a period of 260 millions of years. This is the estimated length of time which would be required to provide the present quantity of salt in the ocean water assuming uniform weathering throughout this period of time. He writes that Goldschmidt (1933) estimates that to accumulate the present concentration of salt (NaCl) in solution, 600 grams of rock wound have been weathered for each kilogram of water in the ocean, Thus, Table I shows that for each 600 grams of rock weathered, 17,000 mg (17 gr) of sodium were released for ultimate availability to the oceans. Likewise. 165,000 mg (165 gr) of silicon were released, and so forth.

    With this estimate of potential elements available, one wonders what is the actual quantity of elements in sea water. The second column of Table I gives us this estimate. For example, in a kilogram of sea water there is on the average about 0.5 mg of aluminum in solution. This is only 0.001% of the estimated 53,000 mg expected if weathering had continued for as long as 260 million years, the estimated time required to provide the observed amount of salt. In fact if we examine all of the elements listed in Table I, we are struck by the total lack of relationship between the chemicals in the ocean and the continents. For example, chlorine is 67 times too prevalent in sea water, nickel is 500,000 times too scarce. Silicon, which is one of the most common constituents of rocks, should be 50,000 times more plentiful in ocean water if it were to be proportionate to that in rocks.

    Perhaps the reason for this total disproportion between the expected volumes of elements in the sea water and their actual occurrence is that the sea water will hold in solution only a tiny bit of each element such as silicon with the balance going out of solution to the sea bottom either by precipitation or by the action of organisms. This, however, does not appear to be the case. For example, sea water is not saturated with silicon. F. A. J. Armstrong writes:

Sea water is undersaturated with respect to silica, although since reported values for its solubility are somewhat inconsistent, it is not possible to say how much.5

    Kuenen writes:

Under normal conditions, sea water is not supersaturated with any product, and circulation is automatically set up in areas of excess evaporation, preventing the formation of excessive concentrations.6

    Thus, the evidence appears to indicate that not only are many elements far too insufficient in ocean water as compared with the quantities that should be present if the oceans were millions of years old but that the evidence points to the fact that sea water in general is not saturated with chemical elements. This suggests a very young ocean. If the ocean had existed long enough, those elements which are especially soluble would have reached a saturated condition in many parts of the world.

    The unsaturated condition of the oceans also suggests that they should provide a reasonable tool for measuring their age. This is a result of the fact that an estimate can be made of the average annual quantity of chemicals flowing into the ocean from the rivers. Dividing the total quantity of an element existing in an unsaturated condition in ocean solution by the quantity of the same element flowing into the ocean should give us some concept of the ocean's age.

    Table II⁷ gives us this information. We see that it would have taken 2.0 x 10⁷ (20 million) years of continental weathering to supply all of the lithium (Li) presently found in this in ocean solution. Likewise, sodium (Na) would have presumably been accumulating some 2.6 x 10⁸ (260 million) years.

    When we look at Table II more closely, we discover a very strange fad. Some of the elements are in very short supply in the oceans. Aluminum, for example, has such a tiny quantity in ocean solution that 100 years of continental weather would have provided it. In fact,

nineteen of the elements found in sea water are found in amounts less than that which would be provided in 1,000 years of continental weathering. This startling information suggests two conclusions:

1. The oceans must be very young because small quantities of many of the elements are in solution. 2. The oceans must be very young because of the wide discrepancy of residency periods of various chemicals. Differential erosion over a relatively short period of time together with other variables such as water transportability and solubility of elements would account for the wide spread in residency times.

    One other fact should be noted in this regard. Chlorine, sulphur, bromine, and boron exist in much larger amounts than that which would be supplied while the sodium was being weathered from rocks into the ocean waters. This suggests a third conclusion.

3. That salt (NaC1) and perhaps a number of other chemicals are in the oceans completely apart from normal rock weathering.

A Look at Sediments

    Even though the sea water does not appear to be saturated with many, if any, of the chemicals that enter it, perhaps they were taken out of solution in some manner. The paucity of so many of the chemicals in the ocean suggests that they may have been taken out of solution. It is true that the mechanisms of solution in, and the removal from, sea water are rather complex and scientists are busily engaged in attempting to understand them. But if the chemicals are not in the sea water, they must be on the sea floor. Therefore, even though the chemicals in the water do not relate quantitatively to those in the rocks, surely the remainder would be found on the sea floor, with the overall chemical content reflecting an ancient ocean. The facts, however, do not indicate this.

    Obviously, much more work must be done before a complete analysis of the quantity and composition of the sea floor sediments can be known. Already many cores have been taken and there is much literature that is available concerning this question. The present knowledge is perhaps summed up by the comment of H. Kuenen:

The differences in composition between oceanic and continental sediments, both as to major constituents and trace elements, are large.8

    In other words, whether we look to the composition of sea water or to the composition of the ocean sediments, there is little to suggest a long-time relationship between the oceans and the continents.

    Wilson sets forth these problems when he writes:

The failure to recover any rocks older than Cretacious from the ocean floors suggests that the ocean basins may be younger than the continents. It has also become evident that the petrology, sedimentations, and structural geology of ocean chasms are quite different from these of continents . . . the ocean basins and oceanic islands are dramatically different from continents in crustal thickness, age, composition, ore deposits, structures, magnetic anomalies and in the patterns and characteristics of their active mountain belts and earthquakes. Several continents have rocks at least 3.2 x 109 years old, which is 20 times the age of the oldest oceanic island, dredging or core.9

    Thus, we see the tremendous chemical disproportions between the oceans and the continents that a very young ocean is the most probable conclusion. Let us now examine the ocean sediments from another aspect. If we knew the annual amount of sediments flowing by rivers into the ocean basins and had some idea of the volume of sediments on the ocean floor, dividing the first quantity into the second should give us the approximate age of the oceans. Or to put it another way, if we knew the annual quantity of sediments flowing into the oceans, we could multiply this figure by say 100 million years, four and a half billion years, or any other length of time which we believe approximates the age of the earth, and be able to estimate the average thickness of sediments on the ocean floor.

    Let us compute the thickness of sediment that should be found if the oceans were 260 million years old as suggested by their salt content. We shall begin by figuring the quantities added to the oceans by the rivers of the world. Clark¹⁰ (1924) has estimated that the rivers contribute 2.73 x 10¹⁵ grams of dissolved solids to the sea each year. In the 2.6 x 10⁸ years that it presumably took to provide the sodium in the oceans a total of 7.1 x 10²³ grams would have been provided. Of this total 5 x 10²² grams are presently in solution¹¹ in the ocean water indicating that (71.0 x 10²²) - (5 x 10²²) or 66.0 x 10²² grams should have gone out of solution and become sediment. A small part of this may have been recycled due to ocean spray, etc., but the major part must still be present somewhere in the oceans.

    The estimate of 66 x 10²² grams of sediment might be checked by approaching the question from another viewpoint. Sverdrup et al., writes¹² that Goldschmidt (1933) estimates that to accumulate the present concentration of salt (NaCI) in ocean solution, a total of 600 grams of rock has been weathered for each kilogram of water in the ocean. This is the basis upon which Table I was developed. Since there are 278 kg. of water for each square centimeter of the earth's surface, and the area of the earth's surface is 5.1 x 10¹⁸ kg., the total weight of water equals

278 x 5.1 x 1018 kg. = 1.42 x 1021 kg. Goldschmidt further estimates that for every 600 gr. of rock that has been weathered, 65% or 390 grams actually should have become available for solution in the oceans or as sediment on the ocean floor. This equals 390 x 1.42 x 1021 grams = 5.53 x 1023 grams. Since 5 x 1016 metric tons or 5 x 1022 grams are in solution, the amount that must have become sediment equals 55.3 x 1022 grams - 5 x 1022 grams or 50 x 1022 grams. This is very close to the 66 x 1022 grams based on Clark's estimate of river sediments.

    With the knowledge that there are presently an estimated 5 x 10²² grams of chemicals in ocean solution and that there should be at least another 50 x 10²² grams in sediments (based on an ocean age of 260 million years), let us determine what the ocean floor should look like. Svendrup¹³ estimates that if the 5 x 10²² grams of chemicals which are presently in ocean solution could be extracted, they would provide a layer of salts 45 meters thick over the entire earth. Since the oceans cover 70.8% of the earth's surface, this hypothetical layer would be 63.5 meters thick on the ocean floor.

    Since we have seen that an ocean 260 million years old should have provided sediments equal to a minimum of 50 x 10²² grams, we would therefore expect an average sediment depth of ten times 63.5 or 635 meters or 2100 feet (with the ocean area the same), that is, if the continents had been weathering uniformly for 260 million years. Since the continents presumably have been here far longer (minimum 3 billion years), one could logically expect the sediments should be far deeper than 635 meters. In fact, by this time the oceans should have almost filled up and the land should have been eroded to level plains. The mountain building presumed to have taken place a few hundred million years ago would have changed these figures a bit, but the basic concept of the oceans filling with sediment as the land masses eroded should hold true.

    Let us now examine the evidence as far as the ocean sediments are concerned. In 1949, Maurice Ewing wrote in the National Geographic Magazine concerning the exploration of the floor of the Atlantic Ocean:

In more than 3,000 places over vast areas of the Atlantic we have now measured with sound echoes, the depth of the sediment on top of the bed-rock of the ocean floor. These measurements clearly indicate thousands of feet of sediments on the foothills of the Ridge. Surprisingly, however, we have found that in the great flat basins on each side of the Ridge this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick, a fact so startling that it needs further checking.14

    Much of the Pacific floor, too, is covered by sediments under 100 meters in depth,¹⁵ with some areas as thin as 20 meters.¹⁶ The following statement relates to investigation of the East Pacific Rise:

A deep-towed magnetometer profile made across the East Pacific Rise crest shows sediment accumulation increases from less than 2 meters at the rise crest axis to about 20 meters at the western end and 10 meters at the eastern end of the profile.17

    Evidence from the oceans is not automatic support for the view of a very old earth. In fact, the evidence appears to point to the opposite conclusion. Patrick M. Hurley wrote in the Scientific American:

The topography of the ocean floors has been rapidly revealed in the past two decades by the depth recorder . . . It became a great puzzle how in the total span of earth's history only a thin veneer of sediment had been laid down. The deposition rate measured today would extend the process of sedimentation back to the Cretacious times, or 100 to 200 million years, compared with a continental and oceanic history that goes back at least 3,000 million years. How could three-quarters of the earth's surface be wiped clean of sediment in the last 5 per cent of terrestrial time? Furthermore, why were all the oceanic islands and submerged volcanoes so young?18

    Kuenen writes:

Two great problems challenge earth sciences in this domain. The huge wedge of terrace sediment underlying the shelf off the east coast of the United States has been built up in little more than in 108 years, that is, in less than 2 or 3 per cent of geological time.

What has happened to the terraces that must have been produced earlier? Have they subsided into the mantle and been absorbed, have they been pushed under the continents, or have they been incorporated into mountain chains? The second problem is the discrepancy between the estimated thicknesses on the deep sea floor, and the values actually found. Various suggestions have been offered, (1) the layers below the unconsolidated sediment are mainly consolidated deposits; (2) the rate of sedimentation has been much slower than in recent times, especially in pretertiary times; (3) creep of the sea floor under the continental blocks under the influence of convection currents in the mantle; (4) the ocean floor is relatively young; (5) the sedimentary carpet has been invaded from below and metamorphosed so completely as to become basic rock.19

    Here then is a great enigma. If the oceans are only hundreds of millions of years old, sediments averaging 600 or more meters (2000 ft.) should be found all over the ocean floor. Instead sediments are normally found to be far less than this, and in many cases, the ocean floor is almost bare of sediment. No theory outside of that of a very young ocean has thus far been set forth that seems as plausible or direr. If the age of the earth is truly billions of years, then the puzzle of the missing ocean sediments is enormously increased.


Summary

    To summarize this chapter, the following truths suggest themselves.

1. There appears to be a great discrepancy between the three or four billion year age 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 radioactive dating. 2. If the accumulation of sodium by the weathering of continental rock as apart of NaCl in the oceans is the 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 beginning or they 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 the oceans. Therefore, using NaCl as a standard results in an untenable solution. 3. If the accumulation of the other major constituent of the ocean salts, chlorine, is to be the guide to age dating, the following would obtain. a. An accumulation period of about 2 or 3 billion of years would result. This is much closer to the radioactive age determination. The oceans 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 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 its present complement of salt and several of the other chemicals. We know from other histories that this solution is untenable. 5. Another conclusion suggests itself as the only plausible one in light of the Biblical statement as well as in the light of the evidence forthcoming from studies of the oceans. That conclusion is that the ocean and the earth is 13,000 years old as the Bible teaches. This conclusion is supported by the following secular evidences. a. The elements in the ocean water are not found in a saturated condition, thus indicating that the flow of chemicals into the ocean is a short-time phenomenon. b. The proportions of elements found in the water or on the ocean fleer bear no relationship to the proportions found in the continents. Such variables such as resistance to erosion, water transportability, and solubility and others, over a very short period of weathering accord with these extreme

differences in chemical proportions. This, too, points to a very young ocean. c. The fad that many of the chemicals in ocean solution are present in amounts that could have been provided within the last 1,000 years or less if all rocks were equally susceptible to erosion, points dramatically to the 13,000 year age of the earth. This is precisely what would be expected in view of the differences in erosion resistance, solubility, etc., of the continental rocks. Easily erodible rocks would have provided elements in excess of those expected within 13,000 years whereas very hard rocks would provide far less than that expected in 13,000 years of history. d. The thin layer of sediments on the ocean floor also point to a very young earth. This is especially true whence consider the cataclysmic worldwide flood of Noah's day. It alone must have provided enormous quantities of sediments for ocean solution and disposition. In fact, its impact upon the oceans was so severe that no accurate estimate of time will ever be derived from the ocean chemicals. e. The fad that certain salts such as NaCl are in such abundance in ocean solution strongly suggests that they have been present in essentially their present quantities from the very beginning.

    The all-important fact remains that even without considering the effect of the flood on the oceans, we must conclude that under no circumstance may we consider that the ocean evidence points to an age of millions of years. When recognition is given to the Noachian flood sediments which must be subtracted from the elements in the oceans, then we arrive more emphatically than ever at a very young ocean. the 13,000 year date of the Bible appears to be the only true alternative to the present theories of a very old earth.



NOTES:

    ¹H. U. Sverdrup, Martin W. Johnson, Richard H. Fleming, The Oceans, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1942, p. 219.

    ²H. Kuenen, “Geological Conditions of Sedimentation,” Chemical Oceanography, J.P. Riley and G. Skirrow (ed.), Academic Press, London and New York, 1965, Vol. 2, p.1

    ³Ibid., p. 4

    ⁴H. U. Sverdrup, The Oceans, p. 220.

    ⁵F. A. J. Armstrong, “Silicon,” Chemical Oceanography, J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow (ed.), Academic Press, London and New York, 1965, Vol. 2, p. 410.

    ⁶H. Kuenen, Chemical Oceanography, p. 5.

    ⁷Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 164.

    ⁸Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 20.

    ⁹Teyo J. Wilson, “Theories of Building of Continents,” The Earth’s Mantle, T. F. Gaskell, Academic Press, London and New York, 1967, p. 447.

    ¹⁰H. U. Sverdrup, The Oceans, p. 172.

    ¹¹Ibid., p. 219

    ¹²Ibid., p. 219

    ¹³Ibid., p. 219

    ¹⁴Maurice Ewing, “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” National Geographic Magazine, Nov., 1949, pp. 612-613

    ¹⁵John Ewing, et al., “North Pacific Sediment Layers Measured by Seismic Profiling,” The Crust and Upper Mantle of the Pacific Area, William Byrd Press, Richmond, Va., 1968, pp. 150, 165.

    ¹⁶Ibid., p. 148.

    ¹⁷Roger L. Larson and Fred N. Spiers, “East Pacific Rise Crest, a Near Bottom Geophysical Profile,” Science, Jan. 3, 1969, p. 68.

    ¹⁸Patrick Hurley, “The Confirmation of Continental Drift,” Scientific American, April, 1968.

    ¹⁹Kuenen, Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 2, p. 20.