Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

I explained this (again) at the top of this page.

Do you read any posts, other than your own?

...I fail to see how my statements are inconsistent with my position. Plesae explain THAT to me.

*sigh*

you and parados are either quite inattentive or simply attempting to derail any constructive discussion. Parados , in particular, seems to want to imply that if I don't reply and re-reply to his nonsense that his has demostrated some sort of hypothesis. Yes, I suppose if one acts foolish enough that folks will begin to ignore you.

Maporsche, as I said earlier:

You objected to the article which referred to mankind's presence on earth for millions of years.

I posted several articles referring to early man making tools and implements in excess of a million years ago. These are articles which espouse the same viewpoint that you profess (i.e. long ages of time, evolution, etc)

Do you not see the inconsistency?

Apparently not, or you chose not to see it. You instead tried to narrow the discussion to 'homo sapiens' , which ignored the context of the article.

NO I don't see inconsistency. I'm not denying that Home Erectus existed 1.7 million years ago. I'm not denying that he made tools. I didn't know you were referring to the common term 'mankind' as anything other than the current stage of human evolution, Home Sapiens. I even conceded that point in a subsequent post of mine, and answered the question raised by your cut and paste job using your version of what 'mankind' stands for. How is that narrowing down the argument, I replied using your definition, once I understood what your definition was.

To try and label my posts as 'inconsistent' is disingenuous and downright FALSE. You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

...You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

maporsche wrote:

...You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

Glad to see you believe in hell ma. Heaven too then? :wink:

Well I think it is inconsistent to concede the point (as you did) and then come back later with 'what are you talking about?' as if you didn't understand the issue as it was being explained to another.

baddog1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

...You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

Glad to see you believe in hell ma. Heaven too then? :wink:

No I don't believe in either. It's like RL said earlier (maybe in another thread)...I don't have to believe in it to hold you religionists to your beliefs about it.

baddog1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

...You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

Glad to see you believe in hell ma. Heaven too then? :wink:

No I don't believe in either. It's like RL said earlier (maybe in another thread)...I don't have to believe in it to hold you religionists to your beliefs about it.

RL, my point was perhaps hoping for a starting point that wasa bit higher up the understanding ladder than your post admits. There is no such thing as a uniform concentration of sea water.

Sea water is in a nice equilibrium based upon its concentration of specific salt. .

Each salt has a specific residence time, and the oceans are made up of hundreds of different soluble salt compounds, when the salts are oversaturated , they begin to deposit and form evaporites (As in the Dead Sea, certain Carbonate salts are actually depositing in the saturated sea)

farmerman wrote:

Each salt has a specific residence time, and the oceans are made up of hundreds of different soluble salt compounds, when the salts are oversaturated , they begin to deposit and form evaporites (As in the Dead Sea, certain Carbonate salts are actually depositing in the saturated sea)

Is it your position that this saturation point is also reached in the oceans, or not?

If not, then wouldn't you agree that the concentrations of various minerals are increasing over time?

Temperature and salinity increase in the eastern North Atlantic along the 24.5°N in the last ten years

Manuel Vargas-Yáñez

Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Malaga, Spain




Gregorio Parrilla

Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Malaga, Spain




Alicia Lavín

Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Malaga, Spain




Pedro Vélez-Belchí

Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Malaga, Spain




César González-Pola

Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Malaga, Spain




Abstract
The ocean section along the 24.5°N has been one of the most frequently sampled of the world's oceans. It has been sampled in 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998. Previous works showed a progressive warming and salt increase of the thermocline and intermediate waters from around 800 m to 3000 m. The maximum warming rate was 0.009°C/yr at 1100 m. The eastern part of this section was sampled in 2002. The warming of the main thermocline has continued at a higher rate (0.042°/yr at 400 m) in the last 10 years. Salinity has also increased along the thermocline conserving the 1992 S relationship. From 100 to 1000 db, the warming is mainly due to downward displacement of the isopycnals, though some cooling along isopycnals is also observed in the upper 350 db.

Received 17 December 2003; accepted 2 March 2004; published 30 March 2004

Please provide your evidence that the entire ocean is contained in the North Atlantic at 24.5 degrees north.

Please provide your evidence that the entire ocean is contained in the North Atlantic at 24.5 degrees north.

parados wrote:

Please provide your evidence that the entire ocean is contained in the North Atlantic at 24.5 degrees north.

Where did I say this?

What a ridiculous objection this is, parados. It's like something a junior high kid would come up with.

Surely you can't be saying that the ocean must be repeatedly sampled at EVERY point before we can determine if it is increasing in salinity.

Or are you? (could be, based on past history...........)