Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 116 (508550)
05-14-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
05-14-2009 6:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 6:38 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 7:56 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 17 of 116 (508552)
05-14-2009 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Richard Townsend
05-14-2009 7:09 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-14-2009 7:09 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peepul, posted 05-15-2009 8:03 AM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 18 of 116 (508554)
05-14-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by JonF
05-14-2009 7:16 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 7:16 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 05-14-2009 8:17 PM slevesque has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 116 (508555)
05-14-2009 8:16 PM


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.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 8:54 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 9:34 PM JonF has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 20 of 116 (508557)
05-14-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
05-14-2009 7:56 PM


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:
Geology
Radiology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 7:56 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 21 of 116 (508559)
05-14-2009 8:38 PM


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: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 116 (508561)
05-14-2009 8:42 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:02 PM slevesque has replied

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


Message 23 of 116 (508563)
05-14-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
05-14-2009 8:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 8:16 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2009 9:14 PM slevesque has replied

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


Message 24 of 116 (508565)
05-14-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
05-14-2009 8:42 PM


Off the rails
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 8:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 9:26 PM Coyote has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 25 of 116 (508567)
05-14-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
05-14-2009 8:54 PM


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:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
The concept of uniformity in geological processes can be traced back to the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), in The Book of Healing, published in 1027. Modern uniformitarianism was formulated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist, James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that the Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 8:54 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 9:28 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 26 of 116 (508568)
05-14-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
05-14-2009 9:02 PM


Re: Off the rails
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:46 PM slevesque has replied

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


Message 27 of 116 (508571)
05-14-2009 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dwise1
05-14-2009 9:14 PM


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 ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2009 9:14 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 28 of 116 (508574)
05-14-2009 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
05-14-2009 8:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-14-2009 8:16 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 9:50 PM slevesque has replied

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


Message 29 of 116 (508578)
05-14-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
05-14-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Off the rails
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 9:26 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:22 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 30 of 116 (508579)
05-14-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
05-14-2009 9:34 PM


Gaps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 9:34 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:31 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024