Your argument is that if the earth were very, very old, the salinity of the "ocean" (as though there were only one, with uniform characteristics thorughout), would be much higher than it currently is. That is a specious argument because the saturation limit of water, which varies minutely with temperature (and temperatures vary considerably throughout oceans and seas), precludes salinity levels above a certain level.
In your post
2911294, you quoted "Pathlights" (an hilariously dubious source of "evidence"), and included in that too, too long dribble of BS, was the following:
Now, if you did not intend to assert that it was your argument, as well, that salinity levels, and the concentrations of dissolved minerals in sea water constitute evidence of a young earth, you ought either to have edited this portion from that pathetic cut and paste job, or you ought to have included a caveat that you were not making such an argument. However, as anyone can see from reading that post, you offered the claims therein without comment of your own. It is noteworthy that that line of crap also refers to "the ocean," as though the oceans and seas of the earth were a unitary body, with uniform conditions prevailing throughout.
You posted it, you own it.
By the way, note this line of that passage:
" . . . and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years." That kind of shoots your young earth horsiepoop in the ass--but if you want to accept that claim, i'll be happy to make a record of the post in which you do so, for future reference.
