Without any evidence to support such arguments, they can never become anything more than conjecture. Basing a conclusion upon conjecture is always fraught with peril. In this case, the Creationists are inserting a conjecture into a misinterpreted set of data and bolstering the conclusion with bogus mathematics. The result is an argument that refutes itself. Certainly, any scientist would know that the majority of removed salts would be combined with other minerals and would not show up in any geological record.
Salts only move from one place to another.
My answer to you is that evolution theory doesn't rely on bogus mathematics and misinterpreted data for its survival. It is impossible for the oceans to have existed for any length of time without salt input from erosion and the evolutionary idea of a 3 billion year old ocean is far, far older than can be squeezed out of the calculations even when every conceivable way to lengthen the time frame was used. Creationists need to learn the basic cycles of mineral deposition and removal that take place in the oceans. Here is a link to some detailed criticism of Behe's book . Denton supports the Creationist arguments that are based upon Biblical literalism.