Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 116 (508589)
05-14-2009 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
05-14-2009 9:46 PM


Re: Off the rails
I don't really care what semantics you use lol ...
As long as we agree there is one objective past, and that naturalism is a belief (thats probably another topic)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 05-15-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 32 of 116 (508591)
05-14-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coyote
05-14-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Gaps
I know this is just one unanswered question lol, i just wrote a couple of posts ago that I posted this to see who on here has that feeling to provide an answer to every single objection.
Browsing through debates such as these, there's always that category of people who just cannot leave a question unanswered and say: you have a point. They feel forced to try and answer even a question that is assumed unresolved by the scientific community. I'm glad that you are not one of those people, since you were able to say that there are unanswered question such as this one
I was just trying to pin some of those people down, so I don't have to waste my time arguing with them further on
(by the way, I will be doing night shifts on a campground all summer, so I'll have a lot of time to discuss with you people)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:50 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 10:48 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 05-14-2009 11:17 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 116 (508593)
05-14-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Gaps
As long as we agree there is one objective past, and that naturalism is a belief (thats probably another topic)
I don't think naturalism is a belief. It is the default, what you find when you open your eyes and look around. All of the objective evidence points in that direction.
But if you come up with some idea contrary to naturalism, something that can't be objectively verified, and choose to accept it anyway in spite of the lack of evidence, now that would be a belief.
I know this is just one unanswered question lol, i just wrote a couple of posts ago that I posted this to see who on here has that feeling to provide an answer to every single objection.
Browsing through debates such as these, there's always that category of people who just cannot leave a question unanswered and say: you have a point. They feel forced to try and answer even a question that is assumed unresolved by the scientific community. I'm glad that you are not one of those people, since you were able to say that there are unanswered question such as this one
I have provided no "answer" to the salt question. It appears to be a gap in scientific knowledge. The presence of gaps, or unanswered questions, is not proof of a very specific deity, though it is often portrayed as such. Thor, god of thunder, went away when scientific understanding closed that gap. Do you want your deity relying on a gap such as that? That's a pretty risky proposition, given scientific advances.
I was just trying to pin some of those people down, so I don't have to waste my time arguing with them further on
(by the way, I will be doing night shifts on a campground all summer, so I'll have a lot of time to discuss with you people)
A campground, eh? Hope you got a good venue with lots of scenery and quiet evenings. Look forward to further conversations.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:57 PM Coyote has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 34 of 116 (508594)
05-14-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
05-14-2009 10:48 PM


Re: Gaps
Yeah, its a pretty neat place hehe
But on naturalism, I like the way you put it. Now I hope we got the same definition of naturalism: matter and energy is all there is
The question is, can you objectively verify (that the criterion you used) that matter and energy is all there is ?
Unless of course naturalism is outside the use of this criterion, because it is the default. But then, what would falsify it as the default ? (It's the first time I encounter this view of naturalism as the default, which explains why I these questions)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 10:48 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by LinearAq, posted 05-15-2009 9:43 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 116 (508595)
05-14-2009 11:00 PM


Also, is naturalism as the default subjective or objective, considering that 300 years ago, theism was the default in society ?

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 36 of 116 (508596)
05-14-2009 11:04 PM


Also, I went to see the definition of the word ''belief'' on an online dictionnary: Just a moment...
That third definition is pretty interesting:
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
A belief can be based on facts and evidence , which is contrary to the definition you gave it ...

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 116 (508598)
05-14-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:31 PM


Unanswered questions in science
Browsing through debates such as these, there's always that category of people who just cannot leave a question unanswered and say: you have a point.
I think you will find that most at this forum when confronted with a truly unanswered question will say, "That's an unanswered question, we don't know, yet. But you don't have a point." At least we will say you don't have a point if the point you are trying to make is that the unanswered question raises doubts about the validity of the ToE.
If the only point you wish to make is that science doesn't have all the answers, I'm quite confident that nobody here will dispute that point, even if you present no evidence whatsoever in support of the point. The experience of science shows that every answer raises more questions. This suggests that science will never have all the answers. Most of us at this forum are completely comfortable with the idea that there are unanswered questions. Unanswered questions are the lifeblood of science. In fact, the presence of unanswered questions is one of the hallmarks of a vital scientific field.
Welcome!

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:31 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 38 of 116 (508599)
05-14-2009 11:19 PM


Topic drift/abandonment alert
The topic concerns dissolved materials in ocean water. All messages and most all message content should be directly related to that topic theme.
People - Get and stay on topic or I'm going to have to close the topic for a while, "hide" a bunch of text, and/or plaster "OFF-TOPIC" banners all over the place.
Also - Watch out for the bare links usage. The essence of the message content should be text in the message, not text located at some other site. But do include links to your info sources.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Call it a typo fix.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put another "s" in "disolved".

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 116 (508607)
05-15-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:22 PM


Re: Off the rails
{Edited... off topic rant}
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:22 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 40 of 116 (508629)
05-15-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
05-14-2009 7:50 PM


No I don't think so - to make your case, you need evidence that the sodium content actually is not in equilibrium. Unless you are confident that all sources are accounted for that case is not made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 7:50 PM slevesque has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 41 of 116 (508642)
05-15-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:57 PM


Sooodium
Your first reference claims that the current concentration of sodium in the oceans, when accounting for the input sources and output sources, requires the earth to be younger than 4.5 billion years.
I did a quick calculation using general numbers of:
a. 300 cubic miles of water in the oceans
b. 35.6 X 10^10 Kg of sodium input (low total estimate from their input sources table table)
c. 20.6 X 10^10 Kg of sodium output (high total estimate from their output sources table)
This resulted in a sodium concentration change of
1. .12 micrograms/liter each year. or
2. .094 ppt per year.
(abe)3. 5.2 X 10^(-9) mole/Kg per year
Are concentration changes this small even measurable?
If so, is the oceans' sodium concentration increasing.
Caveat: I realize that the ion concentrations within the oceans is variable based on location and changes in erosion from year to year. So concentration changes this small may not be measurable each year. However, if decades of measurements have been taken, there should be a trend if the yearly input is nearly always greater than the output.
Edited by LinearAq, : Add another conc. change value

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:57 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 05-16-2009 1:54 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 42 of 116 (508646)
05-15-2009 10:29 AM


The problem with the methodology of counting sink and sources is that you can never be sure that you are not missing sources or sinks (or both). The only way to do that would be to measeare sodium concentration years after years. It would take time but that's the way science works after all. You can't expect instant results for every questions.
The way I see it, anyone wanting to use sodium concentration for any conclusion should make a model of it and see if it is confirmed (many years later) by data collected on sodium concentration.
The way it is used now doesn't allow for any conclusions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 05-16-2009 1:45 AM Son has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 116 (508647)
05-15-2009 10:40 AM


I just thought of something else.
We're all familiar with the ice age, yes?
Well, when that ice melted, and ended up in the oceans, wouldn't that have lowered the concentrations as well?
Or am I missing something here?

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 3:22 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 44 of 116 (508658)
05-15-2009 12:26 PM


Hey slevesque,
As far as creationist arguments go, yours is a breath of fresh air. I get so tired of dumb arguments like "If we evolved, why are there still monkeys?" and "Radiocarbon dating is flawed because I say so". At least this is a question that genuine scientists are still working on.
As far as I can tell after some quick research, salt is believed to subduct through the earth's crust as tectonic plates pass beneath each other at the sea bottom. That's one possible explanation.
quote:
I just thought of something else.
We're all familiar with the ice age, yes?
Well, when that ice melted, and ended up in the oceans, wouldn't that have lowered the concentrations as well?
Or am I missing something here?
Ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon that do not in the long run change the amount of water in the ocean. During an ice age more water is locked in ice, but when it melts it returns to the ocean, actually bringing more salt with it as it erodes off the land. I don't see how ice ages can account for long-term ocean haline equilibrium.
This is an interesting problem slevesque, and I hope someone will be able to shed some light on it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 05-15-2009 3:00 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 116 (508683)
05-15-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Meldinoor
05-15-2009 12:26 PM


Meldinoor writes:
Ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon that do not in the long run change the amount of water in the ocean. During an ice age more water is locked in ice, but when it melts it returns to the ocean, actually bringing more salt with it as it erodes off the land. I don't see how ice ages can account for long-term ocean haline equilibrium.
Ok, thank you. I HAD missed something

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Meldinoor, posted 05-15-2009 12:26 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024