Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,337 Year: 3,594/9,624 Month: 465/974 Week: 78/276 Day: 6/23 Hour: 1/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Geology and the Great Flood ⇒

Salt in Oceans

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
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
  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
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
  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 51 of 116 (508766)
05-16-2009 3:00 AM 		Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
05-16-2009 2:40 AM

Re: I call bullshit
slevesque writes:
​
But, from an outsiders look, it is not impossible that some geologist in the last century have looked into this.
They most probably have. However, geologists are NOT evolutionary biologists. Which is what Lithodid was asking for.
​
Now unless you think that NO one in the scientific community since then has looked into this before Humphreys and Austin came along, than yes you may think that this claim is BS.
No. He thinks it is BS because it uses the term "evolutionist". Biologists don't concern themselves with salt concentrations in the oceans, so they wouldn't have looked into it. Thus, the claim is meant to portray evolution in a bad light, while in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
​
But reasonnably, I think that an unsolved problem always attracts the interest of a scientist once in a while, and it is certainly logical that geologists have been looking to solve it in the past 110 years.
I think they probably have. But not evolutionary biologists.
​
I'll reiterate that I don't care what semantics you use. I don't get it why it bothers anyone that someone says ''evolutionist'' or ''Darwinian'', or any such words.
Because they are meant to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, while it has nothing to do with that. That's dishonest behaviour.
​
I certainly don't waste my time correcting everyone when someone talks about creationists with the word ''fundamentalist''. As long as I understand what the person means, I don't care what word he uses ...
While YOU might understand what they mean, there are others who don't. It is because of them these terms are used, to put them on the wrong idea.
​
I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-16-2009 2:40 AM slevesque has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Meldinoor, posted 05-16-2009 3:17 AM Huntard has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024