Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 69 of 116 (509466)
05-22-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
05-14-2009 10:33 AM


Back to the topic...
For those who do not know the subject a lot, a quick resume is that there is an input of 450 millions tons/year of salt going in the oceans, while only 27% goes out (as calculated by Humphreys and Austin)
Creationists often criticize scientists for the assumptions they use in the various dating techniques.
But here we see a "dating technique" that is not only full of assumptions--faulty ones at that--and omissions, but which also fails to agree with any of the reliable dating techniques.
Yet because it appears to support a young earth, creationists are falling all over themselves to accept it.
So much for "creation" science, eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 05-14-2009 10:33 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Granny Magda, posted 05-22-2009 3:45 AM Coyote 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