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

parados wrote:

Are you saying that the ocean's waters are exaclty the same every sq inch and don't move.

Already answered this strawman when FM posted it.

You don't pay attention and then you throw things out there as if they had relevance.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RLwhat youve posted , makes my point nicely. Salinity, changing over 10 years is hardly geologic time. We have entire 300ft thick deposits of salt underlying Ohio Michigan, NY and Indiana, These were all deposits from residence time turnover and precip during an evaporitic stage of the Paleozoic, IN THIS SPECIFIC LATITUDE(the latitude that these areas occupied at that time.

That was then , this is now.

You aren't suggesting that salinity is not increasing in the present day oceans, are you?

0 Replies

What difference does it make if it increasing or decreasing. The point is it has done both in the time that oceans have existed.

0 Replies

IT CHANGES!!. Its not an increasing spiral t5o a salt block. The very paper you posted suggested that data indicated that salinity in one part of one sea was increasing for 10 years.

I guess Im confused, what the hell point are you even trying to make ? Are you suggesting that the seas and oceans are all a single salinity concentration? Youd be quite wrong and quite misinformed.

0 Replies

Judging from RL's behaviour on the other Evolution thread, it would seem that RL doesn't know what he's talking about and is objecting to anything he can see in an attempt to discredit our arguments.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Are you saying that the ocean's waters are exaclty the same every sq inch and don't move.

Already answered this strawman when FM posted it.

You don't pay attention and then you throw things out there as if they had relevance.

I see. So NOW we have to ask you to define "ocean". Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Are you saying that the ocean's waters are exaclty the same every sq inch and don't move.

Already answered this strawman when FM posted it.

You don't pay attention and then you throw things out there as if they had relevance.

I see. So NOW we have to ask you to define "ocean".

Why would you need a definition of a common term such as 'ocean', parados?

And if you do need it, why should I waste my time providing it?

Shall I ask you to define the term 'I' that you just used? Rolling Eyes

Have you been taking posting lessons from Chumly?

0 Replies

when you dont understand how evaporitic deposits work RL, dont try to mask your ignorance by phony authority. Youve been caught with your pants about your ankles trying to run away.

Try not to post further irrelevancies as "cover" material, its boring and shows reading comprehension skills on your behalf.

0 Replies

Heres an article about a true feathered "bird-like"dinosaur of the Campanian.(late Cretaceous, when birds had already evolved)

Quote:

Mahakala omnogovae is een theropode dinosauriër behorend tot de groep van de Dromaeosauridae die tijdens het Late Krijt (Campanien) leefde in het gebied van het huidige Mongolië.

De soort is in 2007 beschreven door Turner. De geslachtsnaam verwijst naar Mahakala, een Dharmapala uit het Tibetaans boeddhisme; de soortnaam naar de provincie ?-mnögovi in de zuidelijke Gobi.

Het fossiel bestaat uit holotype IGM 100/1033, een fragmentarisch skelet met delen van de schedel, ruggegraat en ledematen.

Mahakala was een erg kleine roofsauriër, ongeveer zeventig centimeter lang. Een kladistische analyse wijst uit dat het de meest basale bekende dromaeosauride was, een aanwijzing dat alle Paraves, de groep die de Deinonychosauria (Dromaeosauridae en Troodontidae) en Aves (vogels) omvat, afstammen van een kleine, wellicht vliegende, voorouder, zoals voorspeld door Gregory S. Paul. De vondst is dus niet in overeenstemming met een tot nu toe meer gangbare alternatieve hypothese dat de voorouders van de vogels eerst nog een grotere fase hebben doorgemaakt en afzonderlijk weer naar een kleiner formaat evolueerden.

Looks like not all the dinosaurs got smaller before they started flying, this one was actually larger (about 3 ft).
If you cant get the Dutch translation into English, you can go to MAHAKALA sp. in Google or USGS or SCience..

The artists rendition (reconstructed from a detailed fossil

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

when you dont understand how evaporitic deposits work RL, dont try to mask your ignorance by phony authority. Youve been caught with your pants about your ankles trying to run away.

Try not to post further irrelevancies as "cover" material, its boring and shows reading comprehension skills on your behalf.

A few posts ago you claimed not to understand the point I made. Now you claim to have completely overcome my argument.

Perhaps you should make up your mind which tack you want to take, FM.

You keep wanting to point out salt deposits ON LAND (previously areas that were undersea) and I am talking about the present day oceans.

0 Replies

Quote:

A few posts ago you claimed not to understand the point I made. Now you claim to have completely overcome my argument.

Perhaps you should make up your mind which tack you want to take, FM.

You keep wanting to point out salt deposits ON LAND (previously areas that were undersea) and I am talking about the present day oceans.

Your continued posting of issues irrelevant to the chemistry is what I asked you to clarify.

I would normally expect answers on a highe level than "that was then , this is now".
Is not "then" or "now" all part of the continuum of time.
In chemistry we can recreated the evaporitic depositions of supersaturated seas and seas that contain excess, say, sulfate deposits but low Chlorides (one will evaporate while the other stays in solution).

You seem to claim that a 10 year period is good enough for establishing an eras trend. I say that is twaddle. Studying micro salinities in various basins is like doing a weather map of the planet, where Highs and Lows can be mapped and conjoined by isobars. (In salinity we call these isohaline lines). Its more an environmental snapshot that shows that ice is melting and diluting salinities up north and temperatures in the roaring 40's are evaporating water thus driving up salinity.
The fact that you ignore vast deposits of previously deposited ocean salts in huge basins that cover 6 states, and dont even question how that jibes with your preconcieved understandings, says more about you than your quote mining and selective snippeting.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
when you dont understand how evaporitic deposits work RL, dont try to mask your ignorance by phony authority. Youve been caught with your pants about your ankles trying to run away.

Try not to post further irrelevancies as "cover" material, its boring and shows reading comprehension skills on your behalf.

A few posts ago you claimed not to understand the point I made. Now you claim to have completely overcome my argument.

Perhaps you should make up your mind which tack you want to take, FM.

You keep wanting to point out salt deposits ON LAND (previously areas that were undersea) and I am talking about the present day oceans.

The present day oceans have areas that are increasing in salinity and areas that are decreasing in salinity. The IPCC report on oceans has maps showing where it is increasing and where it is decreasing. Hence my question to you of whether the entire ocean was in the Atlantic at 24 degrees north. Yes that area is increasing in salinity but other areas are decreasing. You attempted to use a single area as evidence that the entire ocean was increasing in salinity.

The IPCC report says this...

Quote:

Estimates of changes in the freshwater content of the global
ocean have suggested that the global ocean is freshening (e.g.,
Antonov et al., 2002),

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf

Oh no.. actual science that shows your argument is complete bunk.

There was this by you real life...

real life wrote:

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...........)

Hmmm.. it seems that actual sampling has determined the entire ocean is NOT increasing in salinity. Who is playing the jr high kid here real life? Who posted an article to support their specious claim as if it was the "entire ocean" at 24.5 degrees north in the Atlantic?

0 Replies

Pretty funny how you had to edit that sentence to make it appear that you had conclusive proof instead of the 'estimates' and 'data sparsity' which caused the authors to admit they had not the ability to quantify the degree of uncertainty that the 'sampling limitations' imposed upon them. Laughing

Even if it were true (and it could be) that the oceans are freshening at this point due to increased glacial melt, etc.; the point still is that if the oceans were as old as some try to suggest, the level of salinity should be much higher than it is now.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

the point still is that if the oceans were as old as some try to suggest, the level of salinity should be much higher than it is now.

I am quite sure that you haven't come anywhere NEAR proving this to be true.

In fact, until you posted that this was your intention I had no idea what you were trying to do......but it's laughable that you think you've accomplished this 'goal' of yours.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I had no idea what you were trying to do.

Well, I really have to say that when I asked FM (about 5 pages back):

If the present oceans are as old as you propose, why are the concentrations of minerals so low?

that my point was rather apparent. But maybe not.

0 Replies

I can't believe that "real life" continues to try to peddle such an idiotic argument. There's a neat little science lesson which captivates the attention of children in school. You heat a beaker of water to near the boiling point, and then stir in sodium-chloride salt. When the water is heated, it will hold more dissolved salt than it will at room temperature--so what you get is what is known as a supersaturated solution. You can then hang strands of ordinary thread in a glass, and pour in the supersaturated solution. When the water cools, the salt precipitates out of the water, and forms crystals on the strands of thread, creating "salt trees." Kids just love that kind of practical demonstration.

Apparently, "real life's" education never progressed to even that simple level at which he would understand that there is a maximum carrying capacity for dissolved salts and minerals in water. It ought to be really embarrassing to him to use such a simple-minded and completely erroneous argument, but perhaps he is too ignorant to even be embarrassed by using such an argument.

However, what i suspect is that he is just using what seems to be a plausible argument among the ignorant and credulous--as always, he doesn't care what we think, he is only interested in peddling his BS to as wide an audience as possible, the silent readers here who don't comment.

0 Replies

Farmerman's point about salt pans on land is well taken, because it constitutes evidence of what happens to bodies of water which become supersaturated--the salts and minerals precipitate, and when geological uplift occurs, draining those bodies of water, what is left behind is a salt pan--the Bonneville Salt Flats is a marvelous example. What FM is speaking of is evidence, a concept with which "real life" seems not to be familiar.

Parados has made two good points. One is that "real life" seems to think that salinity would be a constant throughout the world's seas and oceans. The other is the linked error that "real life" makes to assume that "ocean" is a unitary concept, that there is only one ocean, in which conditions are a constant throughout.

In the litany of lame-brained arguments which "real life" has peddled at this site, this seems to be a contender for the stupidest argument he has ever attempted to advance.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Farmerman's point about salt pans on land is well taken, because it constitutes evidence of what happens to bodies of water which become supersaturated--the salts and minerals precipitate, and when geological uplift occurs, draining those bodies of water, what is left behind is a salt pan--the Bonneville Salt Flats is a marvelous example. What FM is speaking of is evidence, a concept with which "real life" seems not to be familiar.

Parados has made two good points. One is that "real life" seems to think that salinity would be a constant throughout the world's seas and oceans. The other is the linked error that "real life" makes to assume that "ocean" is a unitary concept, that there is only one ocean, in which conditions are a constant throughout.

In the litany of lame-brained arguments which "real life" has peddled at this site, this seems to be a contender for the stupidest argument he has ever attempted to advance.

If my argument fit your caricature of it, I would certainly be inclined to agree with you. However, it doesn't.

Hope you're doing well, Setanta. Haven't heard much from you lately.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Pretty funny how you had to edit that sentence to make it appear that you had conclusive proof instead of the 'estimates' and 'data sparsity' which caused the authors to admit they had not the ability to quantify the degree of uncertainty that the 'sampling limitations' imposed upon them.

That's nice coming from someone that posted about a limited section of the ocean as if it was specific proof showing the entire ocean was increasing in salinity.

Quote:

Even if it were true (and it could be) that the oceans are freshening at this point due to increased glacial melt, etc.; the point still is that if the oceans were as old as some try to suggest, the level of salinity should be much higher than it is now.

your point still is complete bunk..
Let's assume that the oceans are freshening due to glacial melt. That means that during glacial periods they would have more salt and could actually achieve a point where they would be forced to precipitate salt. So your argument makes no scientific sense.

0 Replies

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:

Quote:

47 - OCEAN CONCENTRATIONS?-We have a fairly good idea of the amount of various elements and salts that are in the oceans and also how much is being added yearly by rivers, subterranean springs, rainwater, and other sources. A comparison of the two factors points to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth.

Of the 51 primary chemical elements contained in seawater, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. For example, the nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated within 13,000 years.

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.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know