Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?

[Bob Enyart]

Do Manganese Nodules Require Millions of Years to Form? No. According to this World Almanac documentary and marine geologist John Yates, they've been found formed around beer cans.

[2011 UPDATE: To discredit this report, atheists and evolutionists below unreasonably doubted and even denied the existence of Dr. Yates. In the meantime, thanks to the ongoing work of Google Books, you can find online a chapter Yates wrote on Deep-Sea Polymetallic Sulphide Deposits in a 2002 text by academic publisher Routledge: Advances in the Science and Technology of Ocean Management.]​

At the Enyart household, we watched a documentary on mining the oceans in which a marine geologist stated that manganese nodules, millions of which liter the ocean floor, take five to fifteen million years to form to grapefruit size. I paused the video, and said to my kids something like: “That’s not true! The Bible teaches that the earth is young, so we know that they must form quickly. And besides, if it took millions of years, then very few would be visible, they’d be buried by deposits.” The first two entries (that’s all I checked) of a Google search on the three words, manganese nodules formation, yielded the same claims: The Wikipedia entry stated, “Nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena – in the order of a centimeter over several million years.” And a Texas A&M Marine Sciences technical slide presentation stated, “They grow very slowly (mm/million years) and can be tens of millions of years old.” Thankfully, we continued to watch the video and heard another geologist state that some manganese nodules “were actually [formed] around beer cans, which obviously are not millions of years old.” My kids are not old enough to drink beer, but they are old enough to be suspicious of the evolutionary bias that produces knee-jerk claims of old age.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

Transcript from the Universe Beneath the Sea World Almanac video:

Narrator: In 1872, the British ship HMS Challenger set out on a four-year voyage of exploration. One of the discoveries made by scientists aboard the Challenger was the existence of large numbers of irregular balls of manganese littering the Pacific sea bed. They lie in densely packed areas, covering millions of square miles. This picture of the pacific sea bed taken by a camera dragged beneath a survey ship, shows how densely the nodules are packed. Trillions of these potato-sized rock lumps lie hidden in the icy darkness. Analysis of the nodules reveal them to be a storehouse of rare metals, manganese, cobalt, copper, and nickel, as well as lesser amounts of dozens of other uncommon elements. In theory, they were an unclaimed natural resource, worth billions of dollars: they were black pearls! Scientists analyzed them for details of how they were formed, theorizing that minerals were precipitating out of the water, and forming layers around a nucleus.

James Hein, Marine Geologist: The manganese nodules form on the deep sea floor in 4,000 to 6,000 meters water depth. The manganese and the iron oxides nucleate around a central core; and the central core can be either a rock fragment, it can be a shark’s tooth, it can be a whale ear bone, it can be a fragment of an older manganese nodule. And manganese oxides accrete in circular layers around the nucleus. And it takes about five, ten, fifteen million years to form a nodule about this size [grapefruit-sized]. Typical deep-sea manganese nodules are more this size [displaying smaller nodules], they’re in the range of about one centimeter to four centimeters.

Narrator: However, there are many unanswered questions about manganese nodules. Even their age has recently been called into question.

John Yates, Marine Geologist: Later discoveries of manganese nodules found that some of the concretions were actually [formed] around beer cans, which obviously are not millions of years old. So, there was a dichotomy. The nodules appeared to grow at different rates, depending on the supply of minerals. There was also a link established between the formation of manganese nodules, and the level of activity in the plankton in the ocean above. In fact, the link appeared to be that the tritus, from the plankton, actually contributed to the formation of the nodules.

Universe Beneath the Sea: The Next Frontier, 1999, World Almanac Video, WorldAlmanacVideo.com, Beverly Hills CA 90211; about halfway into the 50 minute video​

Just wanted to share this typical experience with you. What evidence did they have that these form over millions of years? I guess they had none. Evolutionists make this claim as a matter of habit. And then, if they don't happen to find a specimen forming on a Michelob (or a stalactite growing on an AiG cap), then we creationists have an especially difficult time proving to those with an open mind that the claim of millions is nothing more than knee-jerk bias. -Bob

2011 UPDATE II: See more at creation.com (search for manganese) and in the print edition of the Journal of Creation (see Table of Contents from edition published in Dec. 2010).

 

[fool]

I once had a 3 ft' long stalagtite grow on my house overnite.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

My kids are not old enough to drink beer, but they are old enough to be suspicious of the evolutionary bias that produces knee-jerk claims of old age.

:rotfl: Great stuff, thanks Bob!

 

[Johnny]

I don't know much about manganese nodules. I found absolutely nothing suggesting the formation of manganese nodules on any sort of aluminum can. I suspect that if it were a valid claim it would have been plastered across AiG's site at some point in time, but I found no such mention of it on any creationist sites. Could someone reference this claim?

And then, if they don't happen to find a specimen forming on a Michelob (or a stalactite growing on an AiG cap), then we creationists have an especially difficult time proving to those with an open mind that the claim of millions is nothing more than knee-jerk bias. -Bob

Stalactites growing on the AiG cap and other things aren't the same kind.

Moore, George W. and Nicholas G. Sullivan. 1978. Speleology: The Study of Caves Zephyrus Press, Inc., Teaneck

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims.

 

[bob b]

I would surmise that the formation of manganese nodules would follow the pattern of other natural phenomena that can operate either slowly or rapidly depending on the environmental conditions.

For example, wood can fossilize and become "petrified" very quickly under certain conditions, as has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. The same is true of the various limestone deposits previously mentioned.

The conditions for rapid formation of manganese nodules would probably be similar: i.e. high concentrations of the necessary ingredients in non-mixing areas. Such a hypothesis would of course require experimental verification.

Bob's point is quite valid. The "old age" paradigm is so well established in people's minds that they automatically assume slow accumulation and hence vast ages until proven otherwise.

As a general rule most working engineers are a bit less apt to make such automatic assumptions because of their background and experience with certain physical phenomena which normally act slowly, but can accelerate by amazingly large factors under certain conditions of temperature, catalytic composition, etc.

Those of you who have dabbled in the darkroom know that photographers keep their raw materials in refrigerators because they know that high temperatures cause their stock to rapidly become useless.

 

[fool]

Those of you who have dabbled in the darkroom know that photographers keep their raw materials in refrigerators because they know that high temperatures cause their stock to rapidly become useless.

Food does that too.

 

[Bob Enyart]

recursion

recursion

Could someone reference this claim?

Sure!

Please see: John Yates, Marine Geologist, in Universe Beneath the Sea: The Next Frontier, 1999, World Almanac Video, WorldAlmanacVideo.com, Beverly Hills CA 90211; about halfway into the 50 minute video.

And see this URL also.

-Bob

 

[Jukia]

Got a reference to the beer can nodules from anything other than the video?

 

[Johnny]

I'm asking for a journal reference or technical write-up of the find. Often times things are found and initial claims are made, but upon closer inspection the claim is retracted. "Whoops that wasn't a manganese nodule" sort of thing.

I'm skeptical for two reasons. First, neither AiG or any other creationist site has mentioned the find (which suggests that perhaps it turned out to be something else). Second, I cannot find a technical reference to it anywhere. I can't even find any references to manganese nodules being found around aluminum cans.

 

[Bob Enyart]

our world

our world

Johnny, welcome to our world.

You may have noticed that scientists don't get grants or improve their reputations by publishing findings that blatantly help young earth creationists.

If you have the time, perhaps you may want to try to locate Dr. Yates and ask him for details.

-Bob

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, welcome to our world.

You may have noticed that scientists don't get grants or improve their reputations by publishing findings that blatantly help young earth creationists.

Contrary to what you may believe, scientists, by and large, do not care what the young earth creationists are doing or saying. They do not take the time to consider whether or not a certain finding helps out young earth creationists. I assure you, if it was found, it would have been published.

Further, finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists. It does not, by any stretch, indicate a young earth. The only thing it indicates is that the current understanding of manganese nodule formation is incomplete.

If you take a look at Bob B.'s posts, you'll see a whole slew of publishings and articles that, as Bob B. contends, support his model of either intelligent design or a young earth, or at least oppose current scientific understanding and theory. Why are these published?

I'm trying to find contact information for John Yates, but google is showing no matches for a "John Yates" and "Marine Geology" or "Marine Geologist". I also notice that Yates is not titled with Dr. John Yates, or John Yates, PhD on the video. But they may have done that with everyone. I'm just looking for any information about the find; be it creationist or not.

 

[Bob Enyart]

does not help?

does not help?

...finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists.

Does not help?

Well, let's see. If it takes millions of years to form a single manganese nodule, and such have been formed, then young earth creationism is false.

On the other hand, we young earth creationists claim that mainstream scientists recklessly claim million-year processes; and also, that all claims of millions of years, which are used against our worldview, are false.

And so, since these can form rapidly: (1) this removes the nodules' ability to falsify our position; (2) it gives us another example of reckless claims of great age; and (3) we have proof that another claim of needed millions of years for formation is false.

Johnny, your statement that, "finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists," shows your extreme bias.

And finally, can you consider truncating your signature from:
"Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach when they are engaged in scholarly pursuits such as science."

To: "Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach." ?

Thanks, -Bob

And ps: would you recant your "does not help" assessment?





-Bob

 

[fool]

http://fields.scripps.edu/
There's a John Yates that runs this place, his pictures near the top, he kinda looks like the guy on the TV picture from Bob's link, if you put the two pictures side by side it might be 80%.
It's got his e-mail adress.

 

[fool]

Wow, that was quite some "edit" Bob.

 

[fool]

Anybody found any likely looking Yates?
There's one in oncology.
I found another that didn't look anything like our movie star.
The one who's link I posted in 13 seems to be the most published, but he's a biology dude, I think.

 

[fool]

Here is something about the video
https://www.choicesvideo.net/guidebooks/WAV/Frontier.pdf

Universe Beneath the Sea: The Next Frontier, 1999, World Almanac Video, WorldAlmanacVideo.com, Beverly Hills CA 90211; about halfway into the 50 minute video

 

[Johnny]

And so, since these can form rapidly: (1) this removes the nodules' ability to falsify our position; (2) it gives us another example of reckless claims of great age; and (3) we have proof that another claim of needed millions of years for formation is false.

It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth. The two ideas are not connected by any logical stretch. Although creationists have long engaged in the practice of pretending that negative evidence of one idea is evidence of their own idea, simple common sense will reveal the fallacy in that line of thinking. Although it is true that if this claim was substantiated by real evidence you would have one less page in the book of things you disagree with, that does not constitute helping young earth creationism. Manganese nodules could have formed yesterday, but that does not eliminate the possibility of an old earth nor does it lend support to a young earth.

You claim that it is yet another example of reckless claims of great age, but I implore you to research why it was claimed (and still is) that manganese nodules are very old. I am quite certain that you do not understand why, and you probably do not care to understand why. For this reason, you cannot accurately assess whether or not it was a reckless claim.

I would also like to point out that just because scientists turn out to be wrong about things does not mean they have made reckless claims. We are always learning. Science posits the best idea with the data available. We are not always privy to all of nature's workings. Thus, while a claim may be completely wrong, it can still be a very sound and reasonable claim given the available information.

Johnny, your statement that, "finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists," shows your extreme bias.

The only thing it reveals is your clouded idea of reason which allows you to hold such a ridiculous position.

And finally, can you consider truncating your signature from:
"Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach when they are engaged in scholarly pursuits such as science."

To: "Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach." ?

No I won't consider it. That's not my quote. Your jab at science is quite bold considering your past blunders on the subject matter.

And ps: would you recant your "does not help" assessment?

No. See above.

 

[Bob Enyart]

say it isn't so...

say it isn't so...

It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young.

Johnny, oh, I see, you're confusing your word "help" with the word "prove." Yes, I agree, that fast-forming nodules do not prove a young earth.

But you will give us "proof" of your own hopeless bias if, after this clarification, you cannot now *agree* that fast-forming manganese nodules does "help" the young earth side (whether we're correct or not), even though it may not "prove" our position.

Agreed?

-Bob

 

[Jukia]

Notice how Pastor Enyart has moved directly to references to Johnny's bias. If he were really concerned with the time line for creation of manganese nodules he would perhaps investigate the science further. Instead he falls back to the same attitude he takes on his radio show. Ad hominem attacks on anyone who seems to disagree with his interpretation of the Bible and challenges that cannot be met by simple statements. See his latest about insect metamorphosis and/or legs to wings.

Science ought not to set out to prove young earth creationism but rather should spend its time investigating the natural world, let the chips fall where they may.

Although it does seem to me that if Pastor Enyart thinks this beer can/manganese nodules issue is important perhaps he can get one of the people at AiG to propose some experiments to determine just how quickly such nodules can form around beer cans. I'll supply the empty cans.

 

[fool]

I paused the video, and said to my kids something like: “That’s not true! The Bible teaches that the earth is young, so we know that they must form quickly.

And you accuse others of bias?

And besides, if it took millions of years, then very few would be visible, they’d be buried by deposits.”

They actually adressed that question in the slide show link.