|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Salt in Oceans | |||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But then again, his paper doesn't solve the 100 year-old problem, it just brings it back to life ... Which, were it supportable, would be worthy of publication in a prestigious journal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Sleveque, what confidence do you have that we understand all the sources and sinks of sodium? Of course I don't think we understand all of them. But, if you state that there are other sodium outputs that can account for the missing 63% (or a bit less obviously), then the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you ... Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Which, were it supportable, would be worthy of publication in a prestigious journal. A solution to the problem would be worthy of publication. Just restating the problem isn't worthy of publication in my opinion. it would be like publishing multiple articles on the ''Solar missing neutrino'', but always saying the same facts. (I know it was solved in 02-03, but I didn't want to take a scientific dilemma related to the Evolution/creation debate and that's the only one who came to my mind)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We have plenty of proof (insofar as anything is ever proved in science) of the age of the Earth.
If we don't know all the significant processes of salt addition and removal and their rates, now and in the past, then there's no way that calculating an age that way can be meaningful. It's a non-issue. The whole argument is unsupportable. If Humphreys' had actually come up with something supportable, it would be publishable. As it is he's just repeating senseless bafflegab. Also, I find it amusing how creationists become the ultimate uniformitarians when it suits them. The list of things that Humphreys assumes never change would be a long one. (Radiometric dating is OT here, but just to forestall; there are no similarly unsupported assumptions underlying radiometric dating, just premises based on multiple iindependent lines of evidence and incredibly well-established and tested theories.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Here's the problem:
Even assuming that the salt disparity actually exists (and I don't actually grant that, as it seems to have been disproven already) it in no way overrides the incredibly large amount of evidence we have to support a significantly older Earth. To say that teh Earth is a few hundred, a few thousand, or even 100 million years old requires evidence of sufficient strength to challenge everything we know about: GeologyRadiology Biology Astronomy Plate tectonics Vulcanology Planet formation I could go on. The age of the Earth is established not by one single piece of evidence, but rather by multiple independent sources that all interdependently establish the same age range for the Earth. Even if the amount of salt in the ocean suggested that the Earth was only 10,000 years old, it still would not override all of our other evidence surrounding the age of the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I understand all this very well. My point never was to say: ''See! the salt problem is unsolved! I'm right! I WIN! the earth is YOUNG!''
Maybe you saw some people do that, but I'm not that type of argumentator. All I want is to discuss arond here, and if it happens, once in a while we can say: ''hey, maybe this problem is unsolved''. I have to admit that I knew this problem was unsolved from even before I posted, since it is one of the oldest unresolved problems in geology and I have never, ever found any article that had found the solution. If it ever comes out, it will be making the headlines I'm pretty sure. I just usually post a thread about this very subject on a new forum to see what type of people are around, if they are the type of people that just can't admit that something is as of yet unexplained, etc. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Another point to remember is that I could easily say that about 98% of the data discussed in Evolution/creation forums fit within both theories (examples of natural selection being the most common ones obviously)
The trick is to avoid those subjects who fit within both perspective, and focus on the ones that present problems for one theory but not the other, as the salt in the sea one. A third category of subjects is those who, to fit within a theory, have to do some special pleading (one that comes to mind is the soft tissues in dinosaur bones, it is possible some unknown process can preserve soft tissues-proteins for millions of years, but as long as this process is not found and identified, it is special pleading) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Also, I find it amusing how creationists become the ultimate uniformitarians when it suits them. The list of things that Humphreys assumes never change would be a long one I truly doubt the history of the earth is all catastrophism or all uniformitarian. The present is always the key to the past, unless you have reasons to think other wise, that's how I see it. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Another point to remember is that I could easily say that about 98% of the data discussed in Evolution/creation forums fit within both theories (examples of natural selection being the most common ones obviously)
With that comment you've gone off the rails. There are not two theories. There is one theory, the theory of evolution, a scientific theory based on facts and subject to years of testing and verification. There is one religious belief, creationism, based on divine revelation, scripture, and the like. They cannot be equated--one relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other relies ultimately on some person saying "Trust me!" at some point in the past. ("Really! The little voices in my head told me that...") A detailed discussion of this is probably off topic, and should be continued on another thread, but I couldn't let you get away with that old "They're both theories" nonsense. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I truly doubt the history of the earth is all catastrophism or all uniformitarian. The present is always the key to the past, unless you have reasons to think other wise, that's how I see it. Which is uniformitarianism! From the Wikipedia article (Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia):
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yeah, I thought someone would comment that when I wrote it.
Ok, let's say one theory and a diverging point of view. I'm not the kind to argue on words, I hope you aren't either
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Lol, I know this is uniformitarianism ...
you forgot the part: ''unless you have reasons to think otherwise''. it would be pointless to suppose a cataclysm when you don't have any reasons to think it ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The whole argument is unsupportable. If Humphreys' had actually come up with something supportable, it would be publishable. As it is he's just repeating senseless bafflegab just to point out that even if no creationist had touched this, it would still be a fact that needs to be adressed by long-age theory since it is around since a hundred years and still not resolved... Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Yeah, I thought someone would comment that when I wrote it. Ok, let's say one theory and a diverging point of view. I'm not the kind to argue on words, I hope you aren't either One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious belief without scientific backing. How's that? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
just to point out that even if no creationist had touched this, it would still be a fact that needs to be adressed by long-age theory since it is around since a hundred years and still not resolved...
Its an unanswered question, one of many. Meanwhile the body of scientific investigation proceeds on, untroubled by a few unanswered questions. But creationists seem drawn to those unanswered questions, hoping they will prove their deity resides somewhere within. The history of science suggests that those gaps will eventually narrow, and be closed. Wherein lies your deities then? Its a pretty flimsy type of evidence if that's all you've got. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024