|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Salt in Oceans | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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
A campground, eh? Hope you got a good venue with lots of scenery and quiet evenings. Look forward to further conversations. (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) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Also, is naturalism as the default subjective or objective, considering that 300 years ago, theism was the default in society ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
{Edited... off topic rant}
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4697 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
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 of1. .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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4830 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Meldinoor writes:
Ok, thank you. I HAD missed something 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. I hunt for the truth
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024