- Kevin Hernandez
- North Hollywood, CA
- United States
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How, if any at all! can we minimize the conflicts of religion and atheism.
Finding reasonable ways to bridge religion and atheism. As an atheist I firmly believe there is no God or Gods that exist and there are many others that have this conviction. We all know the antagonism that our group receives and such. And we know the antagonism that the religious receive from those that call themselves militant atheists'. Religion is widely dispersed throughout the world, the cultures and customs associated with it are vast and the ethics that radiate from it is breathtaking. These are elements I think that we can't and should never ignore. Which leads me to say that we should seek a middle course between these two systems. But how?
Closing Statement from Kevin Hernandez
This conversation has inspired heated debate among a number of you and only seeks to solidify how robust the antagonism is between these two groups. Some incredible points were brought up, but It looks like we still have a long way to go before harmonizing these far-flung groups.
Thank you for your participation, it was most welcome.
A Latif 30+
Concerning your inquiry (Originally I didn’t wish to go quite technical but I elaborate a little below; also I couldn't post this comment directly below yours):
Group 2 of researchers who think that the material is likely a preserved soft tissues do know that it is wrapped by a biofilm, and that the biofilm has recent age as dated correctly by the first group, C-14 dating (In a scientific work one of the first steps in a research project is to examine thoroughly previous works). The difference between the two groups, however, is not about this point but about whether there are soft tissues/organic material or not beside the biofilms. The first group interpret the whole material as recent bacterial biofilm (an endocast). They indicate that what was reported, by the original discovery, as heme remnants (not blood cells as popular magazine stories depicted but blood cell size iron-oxygen spheres) are but oxidized form of formerly pyritic framboids. The second group, on the other hand, while acknowledging the presence of the biofilm and its recent age, do think that some of the inner material is likely to be a preserved biomolecules and elaborated more on fossil preservation processes that could preserve organic material over long geological ages, i.e. millions of years. It is to be noted that both organic tissues and microbial biofilms are composed of organic carbon and both give similar EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) signature. This is one source that leads to two interpretations.
The issue is not settled yet. It is a multidisciplinary research work that involves different branches of science.
I hope this clarifies things.
Regards.
Bianca De-Chandos
You are saying that in the Grouo 2 stuff that the c14
was testing what is essentially contaminants
Goolge something like "c14 sample preparation remove impurities" and you'll see it's not a new issue and they have all sorts of acids and alkalis and techniques to get rid of these things.
Are you saying that they haven't got rid of what both groups agree
is biofilm and then C14 the remaining stuff that group 2 think is real Dino flesh ?
When you say this is still on going is this on the table - why has it taken so long ? or is it too much of a hot potato to go there.
But then you say "both show the same spectro ya di ya and both show the same EDS - C14 dating results”
- are you saying here that both have been dated and both show 20,000 years with or without the biofilm ? So if Group 2 are correct and part of it is Biofilm then this dates as a young Dino. Wow that’s like Galileo in reverse ! It will be interesting to see the difference in the openness of the modern Uni’s to this as compared to the Uni’s in Galileo’s time who got quite shirty about it and called him despicable for undermining all the "respectful" scientists of the day - it's a myth to say that "It was the Church" that was against Galileo as in "Only the Church" every University was against him as well - it'll be interesting to see how they've changed since then.
If you have time to reply before the debate closes can you clarify your statement : "It is to be noted that both organic tissues and microbial biofilms are composed of organic carbon and both give similar EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) signature" - is this 'ornagic tissues' in general or the bits Group 2 think is Dino flesh ? - if so then wow! got any good liks on this ?
A Latif 30+
(Due to space limitation, this reply comes in two parts)
1)
• There is that fossil femur bone of tyrannosaur rex.
• The original study, Schweitzer et al., 2005, claimed the recovery of soft tissue vessels and infilling by micro biomolecule remnants.
• The subsequent study by Kaye et al., 2008 (group 1 of my previous post) found that that vessel-like material of the original study is a bacterial biofilm that mimics original long-decayed soft structures and not the original soft tissues; Also they assert that there is no blood cell infilling remnants as reported by the first study but these round microstructures are inorganic oxidized material of formerly pyritic framboids and have no biological significance.
• The bacterial biofilm is not a contaminant within another material (so that it should have been removed) but it is the material that is found inside the Dino bone pores; it is the material that has been dated by C14 (I have my own experience with the procedures of this dating technique as well as with other radiometric dating methods).
• The c14 dating was carried, by 2008 study group, only on the biofilm. There was no second material that has been dated. THE REPORTED 14 DATE CONCERNS A DIAGENETIC RECENT MATERIAL, the Biofilm, AND NOT THAT OF ANY ORIGINAL DINO BONE MATERIAL. Therefore the date of thousands of years is not for the Dino fossil.
A Latif 30+
• Researchers of group 2 (2010) point to the presence of both biofilms and primary soft tissues in the form of round micro biomolecules. They agree about the recent date of the bacterial biofilm. The claimed primary soft tissues or biomolecules haven’t been dated.
• EDS is not C-14 dating (EDS stands for Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy). Any organic carbon remnants give the same EDS signature whether the material is a bacterial biofilm or it is tissue material but this has no age significance. However it hampers identifying the material.
• The original study doesn’t talk about ”flesh” nor about “skin” but about a form of vessels that were found as hollow, flexible and branched microstructures with infilling of globular microstructures; about which there is ongoing controversy as to their actual identity as I mentioned above.
• It is still fresh research subject and it is early to formulate an opinion. There are a lot of technical and scientific questions about the original work. We have to wait for the results of next series of investigations on the same Dino material.
Voila !
Bianca De-Chandos
We have some stuff that is real non-biofilm Dino tissue…
And they have not C14 dated it !
You suggest that we wait till the next round of tests
But what if this C14 is not in the next round ?
If the Dino C14 results came in as young this would more than
swing a few seats in the next US election it could be a sort of
modern reformation of sorts for the whole of the planet.
Any ETA’s we should be looking out for you know of ?
What a "Ciff Hanger" to end the debate with - thanks
Mr Kebabsoup
Of course I would say promote tolerance and free-thinking. If religious people could stop their condescending stare full of "you'll go to hell son", and if atheists could stop to despise the religious people, automatically labeling them "fairy tale believers", if we could just show a little respect toward each other, and try to understand why one person believes and another does not.
The problem is, we can't even prevent fans from two opposing soccer team to hate each other, let alone religions and atheism! I say religion vs atheism conflicts are only the symptoms. The root of these conflicts is pride, and the lack of empathy.
James Kindler 10+
A Latif 30+
On the site of the Institute for Creation Research, the link: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/ I found the following:” In order to have an ocean over a billion years old, yet possessing a meager carpet of sediments, the evolutionist must have some process which constantly removes sediments from the sea floor... the evolutionist MUST SUPPOSE SOME PROCESS (the capitalization is mine) which plunges deep ocean sediments into the depths of the earth! The favorite method is called sea floor spreading and suggests that the ocean floor is like a conveyor belt”. End of quotation.
The above presentation suggests that scientists have a prior intention of a certain concept then they start “making up things” to overcome a difficulty or to make an explanation.
This incorrect presentation aims to despise science and this lead me to contribute with this comment by which I’ll show below how the concept of ocean evolution developed from actual observations.
In 1963 Fred Vine (then a post graduate student) and his supervisor Drummond Matthews observed, from actual oceanographic surveys of the deep sea, that there are symmetrical alternating magnetic bands (of opposite polarities) on both sides of midoceanic ridges. This instrumental observation laid the quantitative foundation for the sea floor spreading hypothesis.
It is the observation of the natural world and the collected empirical data that lead to a scientific theory and not an “intention to make things up” as misleadingly disseminated by creationists propaganda.
It is interesting and saddening at the same time to observe this repudiation of science, science that affords humanity with real and working knowledge and that lays the basis for our marvelous technological progress.
Bianca De-Chandos
Mind S 30+
Thank you for the link "http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html".
It is clear that the speaker is an evolutionary paleontologist. He doesn’t consider the finding of blood fossils/soft tissue a contradiction to the old age of the Dino. The finding implies the long time an organic molecules can survive. However, for me the finding would incite scientists to look further into the process of fossilization which is, like many other natural processes, is not completely understood. Many universities are currently offering funds to investigate museum collections of Dino bones to check if the phenomenon is a common one. The story illustrates the basic qualities of science: integrity, honesty and transparency.
Bianca De-Chandos
Peter Law 10+
Don't you think even a C14 test would be wise? You, Dr. Horner, & the whole evolution lobby just assume that the tissue is 70 million years old. (70m was the number his assistant came up with, no doubt due to the strata). There is no doubt in your mind (no pun intended). You could be wrong. Doesn't the scientific method cry out for tests to verify your assumption.
:-)
A Latif 30+
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to elaborate a little on the subject (I hope Mind S. would excuse me for stepping in).
When the first observation of soft tissue in Dino bones has been published by Schweitzer and colleagues the finding raised the interest of geologists (This interest is unlike that showed by popular magazines). Therefore, systematic research on the subject started and fruited in many important contributions. To be concise and save space I would cite two recent papers that suggested two different interpretations of the observed soft tissues:
1. The first paper is that of Thomas Kaye, Gary Gaugler, and Zbigniew Sawlowicz (2008) in which they concluded that what was found inside the Dino bone was unlikely to be blood vessels and cells. Instead, they suggest, that the observed structures are microbial artifacts, a product of common bacterial activities that produce bacterial biofilms coating the voids left of past blood vessels.
2. The second paper is that of Joseph E. Peterson, Melissa E. Lenczewski, and Reed P. Scherer (2010). In this paper the authors conclude that the preserved organic material is unlikely to be biofilms, i. e. it is likely an organic matter and they suggest mechanisms by which soft tissues could be preserved over geological time (millions of years).
Note: The young age of thousands of years (14C dating) reported in these studies is not for the age of the Dino bone material but that of the biofilms that formed recently (I hope Bianca would read this too).
Regards
Bianca De-Chandos
Yes if it's not dino Flesh which is what 1) is saying then there is no Dino Flesh to date.
If 2 is correct and it is preserved soft tissue then why are you blanking out the C14 dating results for this ? - Did I miss something ?
Group 1 Dates the "stuff" using C14 to recent times and group 2 Claims the stuff is real Dino flesh so if 2 is correct (I don't know which one is correct) then the Dino is 20,000 years old. Don't the researchers who did 2 know about the dating of 1 ? If they did they would not need to “suggest mechanisms for it surviving 65,000,000 years” intact.
On a "religious" note can I point out that when it was thought that it was Dino Flesh (still might be if 2 is correct) and it was dated at 20,000 years old or so using C14 why did Evolutionists not say "Hey we might have to change our model with this new information"
If you know any of these guys can you tell the 2) bods that the 1) bods have C14 tested the stuff ? - thanks for the details on the research
László Szantor
Give us doubting Thomases a break. We prefer to think for ourselves. No scientist worth his salt claims to have found the "truth". Omniscient gods have been silent about human predicaments for how long? Every time they say something it is through the mouths of interpreters professing nothing less than having a hot-line to divine counsel. They are more sure of themselves than any scientist would want to be.
Believe in a god if that is what you need to believe in, but please, don't thwart the valiant strivings of your fellow humans. We are travelling on this planet together. Many of us would like to know where we are heading.
Bianca De-Chandos
And this is what many so call scientits claim - that they have proved the ancient age of the Earth when it turns
out just to be an assuption they started with
Gabo Moreno 50+
-What do you want the age of the Earth to be?
-Well, since we don't want a specific version of some god let us make it 4.5 billion years.
-Oh but that specific version of a god would be denied with much less than that.
-Does not matter, if we have to lie, let us lie big time.
-What when future scientists check our numbers?
-We will teach in the classroom that they have to make things up to fit our numbers, and chant, as a creed all the way until they become indoctrinated to the idea. This has worked for religions, why wouldn't it work for us?
-But how will we ensure they do this all over the world?
-We will find a way.
-Why not just 6 million?
-No, 4.5 billion. Start chanting
-OK. Because we don't want to believe of some specific version of a god the Earth is 4.5 billion years old ... Wait, I just remembered, assuming no salt cycle, salt in the ocean gives me 62 million years!
-You failed because you did not plonk numbers in a cereal-box calculator. It should be 30,000. Some super-expert in the future will figure this out. So, no, don't even publish that number. We have to get to 4.5 billion years. Evolution demands it.
-Ah! Evolution, but we can instead claim that evolution can happen in 62 million years and presto! One less lie to keep.
-You forgot our super-expert. Her numbers have to look more ridiculous than that.
-OK, OK ... chanting continues ...
... and so the history of science developed. Oh. One of these guys was called Popper. The other, I am not sure.
Bianca De-Chandos
"I am happy with Dino flesh dated by C14 to be 20,000 years."
as long as you accept it's a rough figure so maybe it's 30,000 or 15,000 years - or even wider.
In terms of Dnio Flesh 15,000 to 30,000 is miles off 65,000,000 - it it was this old it would have zero C14 in it. You can't say it's 21,254 years or anything like that as you can't calibrate it to anything known once you are past about 2,000 years - so ball park only as we already know C14 varies form year to year.
The rest of your post on the history was pretty much on the spot ! Well done ! we do communicate !, the age of the Earth is derived from picking an impressive number they think might be large enough for life to come into existence by accident and develop by accident to what we have today... with no external, verifiable, conclusive, Objective scientific proof fo this 4.6 Billion year date.
It might be this old, if it is, it can't be proved as there is no dating technique known we can use. Other dating techniques like salt increases in the sea and Helium in the air point to a very young ocean and atmosphere - well actually is shows it was 30,000 years since both were cleaned out of salt and Helium - this might have been the start of the air and Oceans or they might just get cleaned out every few thousand years of salt and Helium. Thats what the evidence shows, the numbers is your calculator.
Salim Solaiman 50+
Mind S 30+
Your post "In Holland they ..."
Misconduct in scientific research, done by few unscrupulous researchers who constitute but 0.1% of the scientific community, is a phenomenon related not to science per se but to other individual/personal traits that undermine scientific ethics. Even so, the rigorous scientific surveillance and scientific checking wouldn’t permit such fraud to gain any ground, and it is the scientific community which declare such rare misconducts to the public.
Bianca De-Chandos
Mind S 30+
2- “when a dried un-fossilised skin of a dino is found the institutionally trained ‘scientists’ don’t think – ‘wow this might be a recent Dino, maybe they only died out a few thousand years ago rather than a few million years ago’ they ‘think wow that’s amazing the skin has survived 65 Million years’ “
Your above statement proves, unmistakably, your ignorance not only about the fundamentals of disciplines such as paleontology and geochronology but also your blatant ignorance about the procedures and research requirements to be followed by scientists in these fields when they find a Dino fossil or any other fossil. A scientist knows well how it is hard, painstaking and demanding task to try to publish an article about a finding in a peer-reviewed journal. May be you should be thankful for this age of the worldwide web that permit you to write such worthless prose about scientific issues. Your case is that of unlearned ignorance. I am not going to elaborate and provide you what you miss, and what you miss is awfully grand, as this forum is not science education platform, but I sincerely advice you to avoid discussing topics that are outside your field of specialization. After all each one of us is ignorant outside the domain of his/her education.
Peter Law 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html
You may be interested in this talk; from 7mins if you are short of time.
This is the story of dino soft tissue being found; blood vessels etc. Now was the idea of the samples being any less than 65 million years old voiced at any time; no. Prior to this find, & others like it, I doubt any scientist would have entertained the idea of soft tissue surviving more than a few thousand years. Why do we swallow 65m year old blood vessels without question ?
OK like Bianca I have no idea what I'm talking about; but humour us with your opinion on this case.
:-)
Bianca De-Chandos
I find your "too beneath contempt to talk to" rather siliy on a debate site.do you ?
If you don't, I'll use it on you : "Mind S you are too beneath me to talk to... ergo I win !" - doesn't really hold together much does it ? - I don't get the point of you taking the time to type it.
In terms of the 0.1 % did it include all the "Tobacco Docs ?" is it 'open fraud' or 'mistakes you should have known better not to make' numbers ?
Type in Pharma (or any big Pharma name) and Fraud into google and quite a few things pop up. These are the ones we know about and have been prosecuted. Does the ESF have a statistic for the average 'science fraud iceberg' - bit on top is the proved fraud. The best thing to do with a stat like that is to see how it changes and even then, is the change the increase or decrease in fraud and stuff or the prosecution rate chaning ? - it's a silly stat any day of the week if you think about it - come on be more cynical ! Thanks Pete for the link I'll watch it later
Mind S 30+
Your TED profile indicates that you have no training in natural sciences. Can you tell me on what basis you indulge, vehemently, in a topic related to geochemistry, geochronology and oceanography? Integrity and honesty call to refrain from such practice. You may choose to live in denial but don’t spread ignorance wrapped in linguistic sophistry.
Bianca De-Chandos
a) Carbon date the floor boards to 30 years ago when the house was built
b) Figure out the maximum time is about 30 mins as the cigarette is still burning ?
- that’s all you need for this debate anything more is being a bit la-di-da :
“geochemistry, geochronology and oceanography” – wow nice big words what’s geochemistry ? salt dissolving in water like sugar in tea – do I now need a scientist to put sugar in my tea ? as it’s “a complex chemical process involving Van der Vaal’s forces” …- and you now need a qualified scientist to this - come on stop being so pretentious ! You don’t need to be a qualified scientist to divide the current concentration of salt in the oceans by the current rate of increase in this and to work out a ball park figure as to how long ago it was when someone started pouring sugar in your tea.
And what’s “geochronology” for Pete’s sake ! – does it mean “how old is it?”
“ignorance wrapped in linguistic sophistry” – this sort of sounds like a confessional accusation, be a nice fella and try not to project you own flaws onto others in public. You essential post is "How dare you - you unqualified in concensus science young lady" - If this is the best argument you have in favour of Neo-Darwinism then Neo-Darwinism is in big trouble
Gabo Moreno 50+
I totally agree with you on one thing: You are a master of rhetoric (read "linguistic sophistry," which means you proved Mind S' point). Your answer is beautifully constructed by all rhetorical measures. That does not say anything about you being right or wrong about evolution, nor about salt-clocks, though. But I am authentically impressed.
Should I mention that you came back to "consensus science" here? That thing that you call a "side point"? Because by your insistence I would guess that it is rather central.
Carlin Covey
Thank you for taking the time to read that article. Your response was very well reasoned. But it occurs to me that the claim that this metric supports a young age for the Earth is yet another "gap" argument. Essentially the argument boils down to "I know how a lot of salt gets into the ocean, but I don't know how a lot of salt leaves the ocean, so since the oceans aren't at full salt saturation the oceans (hence the Earth) must be young." The argument is based on a knowledge gap. The premise is that "If I don't know of a mechanism that removes enough salt from the ocean, there must not be such a mechanism." Lack of knowledge of such a mechanism is not proof that there is no such mechanism.
Regards,
Carlin
Bianca De-Chandos
Yes you are right, I can't deduce that the Earth is young based on this as a QED. The only QED I can do with it is say that the claims made by "Consensus science" that "All dating techniques are consistent and point to an ancient Earth" - this is from an earlier deleted post by Jim who was quoting a Dawkin book he'd just read - are not true. If Dawkin is not aware of this salt thing then he is not quite so top in his field as he makes out, if he is aware of it then it might be interesting to know why he omitted it - did he not have an answer for if ? If he sees himself as a lawyer in a court of law trying to prove Darwin to the public Jury and so only showing evidence that supports his client's case then he needs to let people know this is the game he is playing. If you are going to do a TV show on the BBC you need to be unbiased, if he is talking a brief then he should tell the BBC this so they can get a 'defense lawyer' in to put the other side of the argument.
The Build up of Helium in the Atmosphere also has the same the same thing. But of course something might happen every 20,000 years or so, something that wipes the air clean or even replaces it and dries up all the seas and starts fresh oceans. If you had something as dramatic and frequent as this - maybe caused by a long orbit "Planet X" that comes close and wrecks and renews the Earth on a frequent and regular basis then this could provide the salt out - and Helium out - mechanism - I'm open to other less theatrical hypothesises to explain the salt thing yet keep the ancient Earth stuff as well - but remember it’s an awful lot of salt that gets poured in to the Oceans on an daily basis so to reverse this salination, if you are not going to use a Planet X, I think it’ll need a certain amount of theatre of some kind
Gabo Moreno 50+
Who would read such encyclopedia and why should everybody in the scientific side of things write everything ever proposed by creationists whose efforts consist in isolating data and phrases by cherry picking from here and there and come up with loads of misrepresentations of science?
Do you really think that such a request is reasonable?
Gabo Moreno 50+
I agree that she is using a "gap" argument, but even then her answer is not well reasoned except in rhetorical terms. For instance, she said that they "just declare" that there is salt going out, but the guy mentions at least a couple processes. Curiously, she did see the part where the guy said that the assumption of no salt to begin with is wrong, which would work "against evolutionists." This is because in rhetoric you hold to anything that might look like an admission by your "opponent," rather than try and understand the real point. Creationists train a lot in this sort of thing (rhetoric) because their business is not about finding truth (they think they already know The Truth), but about winning debates. Scientists don't think that way, we mention pros and cons because that is how science works. Thus, the guy was mentioning reasons not to trust a salt-clock, regardless of the reasons being for or against the creationist stance. Right there he also mentions processes taking salt out, but Bianca did not see that. Isn't that something? Furthermore, if she was really interested she could have checked and found more information about these and other processes. She sees what she wants to see then declares victory. Pure rhetoric. No reasonable conclusion can be drawn if all you want is to win debates. This again, is why reducing a conflict between creationists and atheists of a scientific inclination is close to impossible (I just changed my stand a little because of something Peter, a Y.E.C., said to Bianca). We expect honesty and we get rhetoric instead. Same applies to her interpretation of falsifiability: word play coming from equivocating whatever words she has heard about the issue. Same goes for C14, where she equivocates the meaning of half-life and hides a false premise: that ancient fossils are dated as millions of years old by C14 radiometry ... it goes on.
Walter Radtke
Walter Radtke
Carlin Covey
Walter, I am skeptical of this assertion. Do you have any evidence you can present?
Kevin Hernandez
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.TmhrTNQgiqY
This link shows how atheists are the most distrusted minority in America. Unsettling.
Jim Moonan 30+
It would be great if we all could just reach an understanding that none of us know much if anything when it comes to the afterlife and all the baggage that comes with it. We just don't know at this point in time. The fundamentalists are not at all religious in my book - they are sick.
I really think that is the answer - that we are all agnostics if we are honest with ourselves.
Phillip Beaver 10+
In another conversation (on “tolerance”), Gisela McKay taught me one may neither respect nor disrespect: can be neutral (just never occurred to me).
For some time, perhaps two years, neutral is the position I have taken regarding the question: why does evolution seem to follow laws? First, I do not know that my perception about laws is true: perhaps evolution is chaotic. Also, I do not know that evolution follows the same pattern in other universes if there are other universes. Since I do not know, I am neither theist nor atheist nor non-theist. Now, I can add, “I prefer to remain neutral.”
Moreover, I prefer faith in reality, whatever it is. To believe in anything else would require me to turn my back on reality (I think). Belief would inhibit my opportunity to understand.
I want to help revolutionize—improve--the world’s attitudes toward non-religious people, because the status hurts life. Richard Dawkins changed my claim about what I am. I am a human being and member of the community of living species (the change being “living species” instead of humankind).
I like Ms. Armstrong’s invitation to use alternative words to “compassion,” and think that would make a good TED conversation. “Compassion” seems intrusive, but I want to learn.
It seems to me she should know more and share about the so called golden rule. Its positive form, “Always treat all others as you would like to be treated yourself,” seems egocentric. And the negative statement, “Don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you,” while considerate of the other, seems limited to your experience or imagination. I suggest, “Treat each other with empathy.” Again, I want to learn.
Phil
Bianca De-Chandos
If you want to ”understand more” it might be an idea to think about the concept of “Linguistic thinking” (thinking using words, rather than thinking then trying to find words to use to express your thoughts), then consider the possibility of the severe inadequacy of the English language to provide the words needed for very much more than trade and everyday prosaic things. Greek, and ancient Greek, so they tell me is a far better language to use to ‘think in’ in terms of any kind of philosophical a stuff. I don’t speak a word of Greek but it’s adequacy is not limited to the 4 different words used for the 1 English word “love” in the New Testament so I’m told. Your “I suggest, ‘“Treat each other with empathy’ ” is then limited to the ability – sometimes very low of an individual to empathise. Too much of English philosophy and debates in general is just a rabbit hole run of trying to express an idea using an inadequate linguistic tool. I don’t know the original, but in the Greek New Testament the instruction is “Love one another as I have loved you” and I suspect in the original it meant a more balanced, less stifling, less limited to the abilities or otherwise of the ‘Lover’ sort of thing. When English people talk about such things they need to do it ‘live’ so that the tone of the voice, the body language, the hand movements… can help set the tone for what they are trying to express. Chasing a dry definitional improvement to : “Treat each other with empathy” will just lead to other problems with the new inadequate words chosen. If you are stuck with words on paper add “you know what I mean” and “Sort of” and give a few boundary ‘worked examples’. - I suggest.
Phillip Beaver 10+
In June, I got on the bus, and the sun was hot and believe it or not, the entire right side of the bus was filled. Not one seat in the shade! I sat on the left and was so sefl conscious I thought it was me, not shade that caused them to sit right. I asked, "How do I say, 'Alone, I'll balance the bus."
A big, loud conversation started and after a few minutes, they said, "There is no popular Greek word for "balance," but we are going to teach you a sentence mixiing popular Greek with the ancient Greek word. Say 'Monos moo tha isoropiso to layophroeo."
In all things we need balance.
Debra Smith 100+
Yes, I agree. In all things we need balance.
Oren Robinson
Bianca De-Chandos
Phillip Beaver 10+
Other than to quote a person, I see no need for the word "science." For example, if you want to quote Albert Einstein, a person who subjected his work to understand the universe to religion, you cannot escape "science". However, even in my own text, I cannot escape the word "religion."
Phil
Gabo Moreno 50+
One more implication of the insistence on falsifiability is that once a hypothesis is proposed, other scientists, and the proponent herself, would attempt to prove the hypothesis false. That does not sound at all like chanting in agreement, does it?
Thus, I suggest that, before opening your mouth to say things taken from creationist demagogues, you checked somewhere else to see what Karl Popper really proposed, or how scientists really get to agree that something deserves the right to be called a theory, and so on. This way you would avoid being labeled as an ignorant and/or as a liar. This way we would at least save a bit of the conflict that this conversation is about. The self-confidence and self-righteousness with which you hold your misinformation is the main problem. You are so proud of it that you don't even try and check to see if what you have been told corresponds to reality. If you are going to describe Karl Popper and scientists, then check Karl Popper and scientists. Not creationist propaganda about them.
Amen.
Frans Kellner 50+
In Holland they recently exposed a leading professor psychology for making up many experiments and publishing results from it that supported his theory.
A bit in analogy with Bianca.
Their self-confidence and self-esteem is that much depending on their beliefs that when those are threatened their existence of self is as well.
Bianca De-Chandos
Maybe your calculator works differently from mine - or maybe it is the same and you don't like the answer it shows.
You can do a thousand and posts telling me how beneath contempt I am or one post showing me how my simple-to-calculate numbers are wrong - you've chosen the former - fishy or what ?
"Karl Popper proposed that scientific hypotheses should take a falsifiable form"- That's good now you've caught up with the "scientific hypotheses" stuff which is posh talk for "made up".
"Falsifiable" means the Consensus holds this made up stuff to be true until it is proved to be false You'll hear phrases like "current thinking is ..." and "Scientists think that...".
Most lay people have no idea that this is what is now called "science", most lay people, (and maybe even yourself at the beginning of this debate) think that science is stuff the scientists have proved true, now
you know it's "made up stuff they haven't yet proved false" you can see my claim that the same word "science" should not be used for both of these totally different things. In terms of the technical practicalities of getting this Popper science system to 'work at all' the problem is that when an Hypothesis has been around for a while a lot of stuff gets invested in it as if it's a proven truth.
Bianca De-Chandos
This dating of the Oceans and Air to 30,000 years ball park is certainly one of these things. There are no two ways about it Atheists have jumped on the evolution horse and have invested very heavily in it as well, and to form they are here telling me how horrible I am as a person and how they could not even think about getting their calculators out to be bothered to look at the technical issues – Now that’s faith ! so certain are they in their belief that it’s not even worth to think it might not be true so no need to check just go straight at the heretics – that Faith is based on “made up stuff” – poshly called “scientific consensus” – As I said at the start Atheism is a faith it’s a belief… it’s a religion.
Gabo Moreno 50+
Well, of course there are all kinds of people everywhere, but you are adding unnecessary noise to this exchange. It is one thing a dishonest scientist making up data and publications, it is quite another to accuse the scientific community of just making things up while every other scientist chants in agreement because, according to the misinformation, Popper's philosophy of science requires this to be so. In Bianca's version of science, we should have just applauded to that professor and chant in agreement.
I hope my point was much clearer than that, and that you don't suppose that I was talking about self-confidence as in self-esteem, but about the attitude of complete certainty these creationists display when talking about things they were told by someone on a pulpit, while ignoring the information available our there for everyone to check. Bianca could check what Popper was really about, but no, she assumed that every misconception, no matter how preposterous, is absolute and irrefutable truth. I can't believe the nerve ("nerve" should have been the word to use instead of "self-confidence" my mistake) of coming here and tell a real-life scientist that his work is just about making things up while everybody else chants in agreement.
Gabo Moreno 50+
If so, I suggest we try to solve the Popper-misinformed interpretation that you hold. Let me both of you know if this is acceptable, both for you Bianca to accept discussing this "problem" and Kevin to accept it as part of the conversation. Bianca, you can still say no if you don't agree with the rules, which, we can agree on after I know if you are interested and Kevin willing to make it part of the conversation. I would start by saying what I think you mean, and then, after you agree that such thing is what you meant, we start. I will be open and try hard not to add irony nor insults.
Let me know Bianca and Kevin.]
[Bianca, as for answers to your ocean problem, it was answered. Seems like you did not scroll down enough. Somebody even posted a link to an answer. Search for "ocean" and you should find it. Also remember that most of our other conversation was deleted, so you did not see that I answered a lot more of your claims.]
Bianca De-Chandos
Just because this article was a useless (but very confident and full of ‘nerve’) it does not mean that I am right (but the article does have a good picture sketch on the ‘lack of the salt cycle’ in case people didn’t get what I was saying).
I guess you haven’t read the link Carlin posted, and I suspect if you did you wouldn’t want to pin your colours on it’s mast. But the questions it tries and fails to answer are the questions I am asking you.
Bianca De-Chandos
I’m pretty good at this sort of debate and if I beat you it will only prove I’m a clever cloggs. I already know I’m a clever cloggs, what I don’t know, and what me and everyone else reading this is interested in is this :
I’ve pointed out
1) There is no Salt cycle so salination rates can be used as a rough guide to date of the oceans to 30,000 years – not enough time for evolution as we know it.
2) There is no Helium cycle in the atmosphere so Helium increases can be used as a rough guide to date the air to 30,000 years – not enough time for evolution as we know it.
I did a few other major points as well but these will do for now – If I “beat you” on these then this will more show how weak Neo-Darwinism is rather than how clever I am compared to you or otherwise – So the question is : Do you or anyone else have a valid refutation of these 2 points ?
Gabo Moreno 50+
How could we determine that either of us is right, rather than who has the most rhetorical skill? You will insist that there is no salt cycle (did you add helium just in case?), I will insist and name processes taking salt out. That's it. No way for anybody, you, me, any reader, to verify if the salt going in is cancelled out by the salt going out or not. This is why I chose something people would understand once the reasons for Popper to propose falsifiability came out. It is philosophy, and for that all you have to do is think (well, I am dramatizing, but it is within most people's reach). If we went for salt in salt out, the only possible final point would be who do you trust more, actual geologists/oceanographers, or a bunch of creationist maniacs. We really don't want to get there. Actually that's it. Let's save time: I trust the scientists. See? Nothing else to say. We come back to whether there is a good reason not to trust the scientists, and that goes back to loads of stupidity about denying gods in unrighteousness, and goes nowhere. But Popper could go somewhere. Also, I finally understood where your misinterpretation comes from (yes, I was paying attention).
You get the idea? I don't care nor want to beat you on a debate, I want to find out if communication is feasible or not (the topic of this conversation). To that end, I can show you why falsifiability. But if you think salt in salt out works, tell me how exactly would we determine truth. Surely you don't think that the best rhetoric would determine truth (?!).
But I am open if you think there is something else that does not end in who you trust more. Also something that would not take forever.
Please focus. Just one post.
Bianca De-Chandos
“It is not about beating you or me, it is about showing whether we can communicate and get to an agreement”. “Imagine we could communicate and get to an agreement on Popper” so what ? the salt and the Helium were busy building up before Popper was born – it’s a bit of a side show
“You will insist that there is no salt cycle (did you add helium just in case?)”- I added Helium to show that there are more of these type of dating techniques and there may be others I don’t know about. On a debate like this it’s best to do one at a time but I wanted to show it’s not sea salt or bust. And these are easy to think about and work out with a Calculator.
“I will insist and name processes taking salt out. That's it” – brill ! do that then we can have nice and easy meat and potatoes – if you divide this number by that debate that everyone can follow and see the relevance of.
“No way for anybody, you, me, any reader, to verify if the salt going in is cancelled out by the salt going out or not” – well then we can look at that - they are always measuring this and that in the ocean and with satellites and every month they have better techniques as you are a scientist you can ask your mates in the Oceanography dept to give you the latest data.
“the only possible final point would be who do you trust more, actual geologists/oceanographers, or a bunch of creationist maniacs.” – I’d go for the data
on salt levels provided by the oceanographers – I’m not interested in their interpretation of the data as this will essentially be asking them to explain to me the current consensus paradigm and this is a bit circular in terms of our current debate
Bianca De-Chandos
I’m not against doing Popper per se – it sounds like you have something interesting to say on it and I’m now interested to know what it is. “Only one post” do you want to do Popper in one post ? – Ok go on then, but philosophy debates are frequently decided on linguistic and rhetorical skills but give it a quick go if you want.
Gabo Moreno 50+
Also, I don't understand how Popper is a side point if you come again and again to "they would just give me the made up consensus," which comes from your misunderstanding of falsifiability, which is the Popper thing. Please explain how is it a side point. I truly want to understand. If we did work our falsifiability it would not take just one post. We would go through the reasoning behind falsifiability. One step at a time. If time allows, because I bet it would be hard to keep you focused.
Bianca De-Chandos
And that so the latest data must be out there somewhere.
If you are working in a Uni then you might get access to Google Academic which might have lots of this data.
“I can tell you, among other things, of salt deposits (due to evaporites) that put the age of the oceans way back into billions of years. That's data – “Yes this is the sort of stuff that I like and makes sense… and gets us somewhere : you can’t C14 date salt so you can’t say it’s age (and if salt mines like in Russian and Cheshire were due to oceans evaporating they would be full of dead sea creatures so it looks like they are not formed from Ocean evaporates either – In this can you see how the paradigm, the consensus comes first and the facts that fail to back it up – which in a proper Popperian World – would challenge the paradigm to be re-worked - are instead ignored. I don’t mind a quick one but lots of posts on Popper will get us no where.
I prefer evidence based science – Get the data and see what the data tells us. The salt is the way to go
Gabo Moreno 50+
1. Well, you are not certain that there are no creatures trapped in there.
2. You do not know if while the water was evaporating larger dead life forms could not have been degraded by microbes.
3. Thus you don't know how abundant should creatures be in there (maybe you said "full of" for pure rhetorical effect,)
4. You do not know if there is organic material in those salt deposits
5. That you can't C14 something does not mean you can't determine its age. The age of salt crystals can be determined if the crystals contain other isotopes useful for radiometry and by determining the age of igneous rocks where the salt is trapped.
I would think that if scientists have determined that the Cheshire salt mines are huge evaporite deposits they have data to support such thing (Cheshire and Russia are not the only huge salt evaporite deposits). I doubt they would just make this up. So this boils down again to trusting that scientists know what they are doing or not. Which you don't, but I do. I do because I know we don't just make things up. You do not because you think, out of your ignorance, lack of scientific training, and misinterpretation of Popper, that science is about making things up. So, salt seems to be a dead-end. You will be handwaving salt-going-out and we will get nowhere. So? Do you still think that salt is the way to go? Remember, I am not debating you. I want to test if we can communicate. Apparently only a little tiny bit (so far). But can we agree on something? That's the real challenge.
And you went again to your Popperian thing. Sure that it is just a side-point? Sure that salt-clocks could lead us to agree on anything? Even if the agreement were that salt were an open question? (In other words, since you don't know how the age of these salt deposits is determined, nor how they know it comes from evaporites, you should be open to being wrong about this, right? Not conclusive, but open. Right?)
Bianca De-Chandos
If you can't C14 something then you can't tell it's age for old things because C14 has a known start point : when the creature dies. If a cat gets trapped and dies 5 years ago in a 10,000 year old rock you can't date the cat at 10,000 because of the stuff around it – that was already old to start with. If the salt contains well salts and some were radioactive - you can't 'start the clock' when the crystal is formed, any radioactive material was radioactive and was decaying before the crystal was formed - it's a fundamental weakness/flaw/error in non-C14 dating techniques. So an Old Earther cannot say “Science has proved the ancient date of the Earth”, all they can say is that it is the current scientific consensus that the Earth is ancient but they can’t prove it. The thing is when you ask a scientist why they think this when they can't prove it, after a bit of debate about it, it usually comes out that Scientists assume there is no God and it was all created by accident and this needs a long time to do - Atheism is an assumption baked into the core of the modern Scientific Consensus in this area. “Science”, in this area, is a branch of the religion Atheism, so it’s no evidence to say Science backs Atheism when this branch of science is based on it – it’s circular
When I told you about this salt in the sea stuff did you say “wow that’s interesting, if it’s true it’s a game changer” or did you think “This must be wrong because it clashes with my what belief, faith in science, faith in Atheism ?” A good real scientist is always on the look out for a falsifier.
Gabo Moreno 50+
There is more to radiometry than C14 and starting points. It is not about how much radioactivity is left, but how much of an isotope has transformed into a "daughter" element, and some basic knowledge about how crystals form. You would measure ratios of parent and daughter elements. You do this for as many elements as you can to cross check (consult a good book for more).
I have never seen any scientist come down after some debate to "this is the scientific consensus from assuming there is no gods." Thus you are either lying, or have "debated" quite unprepared "scientists." I just showed you that you have no idea about dating by radiometry other than your elementary-school/creationist-propaganda-impregnated C14 assumptions. Will you admit your mistake or consult a creationist web-site for a reply from somebody else's pedestal of ignorance?
When you told me about your salt "problem" I thought, "Which crackpot did she get this from?" Why? Not because it "clashed" with my "beliefs," but because the first thing I read from you was that we scientists just make things up, and other things I knew you were wrong about. If you were misinformed about all the things I knew, why should I have expected you to be well informed about other scientific stuff? However, I checked. I found nothing even suggesting you could be right, but found that you were clearly both quite outdated and wrong. You did not even agree with the creationist propaganda (60 million, not 30 thousand years). That was indeed a surprise.
Bianca De-Chandos
"salt is open then? " yes salt in salt mines of course – it can’t be dated.
"There is more to radiometry than C14 than and starting points".
- well it's a major feature that gives it a credibility that the other techniques do not have. So it's not to be underestimated by declaration.
"You would measure ratios of parent and daughter elements You do this for as many elements as you can to cross check (consult a good book for more). You can "cross check" - usually defaulting to "circular referencing" till Kingdom come : If you don't know how much of the parent and daughter were their at the start of your dating no amount of looking at the present combination will do you any good at all - you can be off my billions of years - it's a major fundamental flaw of all of these techniques except C14 dating which starts when the thing dies.
Think of it this way : if Uranium dating proved I was right - because I showed you a lump of Uranium for which only 30,000 years of decay into lead was present you'd say hang on how can you show something as flaky as that ! - and you'd be right.
Bianca De-Chandos
"I just showed you that you have no idea about dating by radiometry"
- no you haven't, having a start point is vital to any dating - only C14 has this. It’s simple, if you have the end amounts, the start amounts and the rate then you can work out the age – if you miss any of theses you don’t have biscuit, not matter how much you cross reference other “missing one” techniques you do.
"but because the first thing I read from you was that we scientists just make things up" if you have heard of Popper's 'Conjecture and Refutation' then the word Conjecture means "making things up".
"However, I checked. I found nothing even suggesting you could be right" just how did those respected scientists explain how millions upon millions of salt wash- ed into the seas every day for thousands of years gets back out of the sea ? - all they said is it ‘must’ happen somehow if the Earth is really old - that's not science that's an assumption re-worded as a conclusion – so you did find evidence : If there were huge salt monsters that ate salt then they would show us, their lack of showing us salt monsters shows they haven’t got a clue how to get rid of this much salt time and time again.
"You did not even agree with the creationist propaganda (60 million, not 30 thousand years). That was indeed a surprise." - not to me I just plonk numbers in a calculator and see what the answer is.
Gabo Moreno 50+
Further example, instead of checking what I said about dating you just twisted the few words you got from what I said to insist on you being right about C14. You did not bother to actually learn about radiometry. Seems like dating with several isotopes and getting the same answer does not impress you because you don't understand ratios besides not understanding half-lives and the math required to dealing with them. Might be words too big for you. Oh, sorry, it must be "made up" stuff. That must be your definition of made up: whatever Bianca does not care to understand. You rather hold to your ignorance than admit that there was something you were not considering or that you do not understand. Keep "plonking" numbers to your cereal-box calculator. That seems to be the extent of your scientific knowledge. I see and confirm that there is no diminishing conflicts with the likes of yourself. You are, after all, just a despicable rhetorical creationist tool. A thing that you will be happy to confirm as an answer to this my last message to you. As an exercise about the theme of the conversation it worked. So I consider it done. I tried, but lying about what I said, to my face, is too much.
There you have it Kevin. There is good reason for the conflict. I openly admit that I am polarized. But I became polarized because of the kinds of rhetorics and dishonesty displayed by the likes of Bianca.
Adios.
Bianca De-Chandos
In terms of using ratios in non-C14 dating that mainly means calibtrating one inadaquate technique by another and is not worth anything at all. All you'll see coming out of the end is the assumptions put in at the start to make up for the inadaquacy of the technique - you call this science - I call it making it up. Plonking numbers in calculators is something you might try it helps to give you a better feel of ball park big numbers
Kevin Hernandez
I believe you said earlier that science can be classified as either true science or made up science. Evidently that's false. Seeing as to how once a theory or hypothesis is formulated there has to be consensus among scientists concerning a specific subject. Ask yourself what would be the point for them making stuff up? More in depth perhaps the problem is syntax. What science? It is the study of the physical or natural world using observation and experiment; hence scientific method. The creation story when scrutinized through this method is obviously false. I honestly think Gabo tried his best in informing us about the whole salt cycle in relation to the Earth's oceans (something I do not know the likes of). More to the point he shows how rigorous science can be. But let's say hypothetically he is wrong? What gives you the authority to be right? Unless of course your an expert in the field than perhaps it would be wise to be leave this entire discussion to the scientific community that dwell on these questions.
Consensus that has been reached among different scientific inquiries are laid bare when in observance of the real world. The computer every Tedster uses to comment on, I would say, polemic subjects is the product of the scientific method. The same can be said just about everything, whether that be our car we use to commute to work everyday or our smartphones. How else have we advanced as a species?
Even if a few scientists did make up facts for whatever reasons (even though that would lay bare the stupidity of why they would) they would be scrutinized by the entire scientific community.
The back and forth between you and Gabo is a demonstration of why I began the conversation in the first place. I see countless examples of people who honor their religion, and I don't blame them, but when faced with true empirical evidence of inconsistencies in their belief system they just ignore it and try to find solace. And atheist's render them ignorant.
Kevin Hernandez
...........
Gabo Moreno 50+
This is why I see no way and no reason to minimize this conflict. These creationist charlatans have earned the mockery and despise. I know. I was very tolerant just a couple of years ago. But not any more.
Frans Kellner 50+
Bianca De-Chandos
Gabo Moreno 50+
OK, since this explanation might help you understand my intolerance, it might be considered related to the point of this conversation and not be deleted. So here: what I would have done then is just explain very calmly to you how and why you are wrong (the teacher in me would have surfaced). I would have tried really hard to make the points very clear and then I would have been very surprised that you would jump all over the place adding more and more stuff, often unrelated to the point I am trying to clear up, as if I told you nothing. Even then I would have insisted in the explanations and even added careful explanations to the new points. Of course I would have been very surprised by your confidence at describing me as someone who chants in agreement to every proposal by other scientist, not matter if crazy, but would have not have gotten angry and would have calmly tried to make you see that you have been misinformed about the scientific endeavour. I would not have said anything about despicable creationist propaganda, nor would I have assumed from the beginning that you would be jumping all over the place with more and more misinformed claims, not letting me know if you understood any of my answers to your previous claims or not.
(There are many processes taking salt out of the water by the way. According to reputable geologists and oceanographers, the rate of salt accumulation is very variable over geological time--meaning it is not constant--, as it is the rate of taking it out, but it seems that these rates ***tend*** to cancel each other out. It seems also that creationists cannot agree on this one, since I found some claiming that the oceans would be around 60 million years old, while accepting, unlike you, that there are processes taking salt out. Only they don't accept these processes to be enough for the true age--billions of years--of the oceans. Of course.)
Bianca De-Chandos
“but it seems that these rates tend to cancel each other out.” Can’t you see how they got to this ? they looked at the salt increasing every year then said yieks this dates the oceans at 30,000 years and we 'know', ‘assume’ from our base belief and assumption that the Earth is ancient so somehow somewhere the salt must have come out again.”
You can’t plonk an assumption in a theory and see it pop out at the other end and call it a ‘conclusion’- you can see how I’m not much impressed with the so called reputation of these ‘reputable’ scientists.
Carlin Covey
In just a few minutes search I found the following link explaining why the salt cycle is not a good metric for the age of the oceans: http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/ocean_salinity.html
Bianca De-Chandos
Thank you for this link, I saw your post late tonight and thought "wow a real challenge ! maybe by the end of me reading the link I'll have different view on everything ! I then went out to have a drink with some friends - all night I had at the back of my mind what will I think after reading this article. I've just returned home and I've just read it :
"The dates calculated by all who attempted this method were wrong because of several fundamental flaws in the system. First of all, to use the salt clock as an actually clock, you must assume that the starting point would be 0% salinity"
- Yes this 'first flaw' is true... for dating the age of the Oceans but not for dating the maximumn age of the oceans - it they had salt in them to start with the 30,000 years date would be less - that's their first (and major? ) point - this is no point at all when yo think about it !
In the article the statement is made "In fact, the amount of salt lost from the ocean and the amount it gains are about the same" - wow so there is a salt cycle - go on... explain it to me... they don't ! they just 'declare it"... as a 'fact'. - bit weak (Ok a lot less than a bit weak more like 'nil point'). At the sentance I'm reading I'm thinking "go on show me Millions of tones of salts being dumped from the oceans back on land every year - Come on you can see huge rivers pouring into the oceans on National Geopgraphic - but you can't see millions upon millions of tonnes of sea salts being dumked back on land every year. The article simply 'declares' equlibrium in salt exists but does not show one.
Bianca De-Chandos
It says "Despite the known scientific reasons for which this method cannot be used as an accurate natural clock..." what are these 'known scientific reasons' other than the stuff in the article ? is it the hyperfine 'accuracy' stuff - I don't care about that I'm after "order of magnitude stuff" and 'ball park' and 'ball park' dates the Oceans as very young. I mention 30,000 years as the date using this technique. If I'm out by a huge factor of 10 it's 300,000 years - it's still millions of miles away from the 'concensus' date of 4,5400,000,000 years old.
(PS Helium increases in the atmosphere date the atmosphere at about 30000 years as well) Anyway thank you Carlin for your post : Despite being a girl I so much prefer a "meat and potaotes" fact debate where we can all get stuck in on facts and figures to as opposed to the "you have upset me" sort of posts that have been the reponse so far. Thanks
Peter Law 10+
I read this as well. There seem to be two systems which are claimed to remove salt.
1) Uplifting of the sea bed. Surely if the land uplifts, the water (sans salt) runs back into the sea.
2) Subduction. Well maybe, but I doubt if much water can squeeze between the tectonic plates.
What we really need is a history of past salt levels; which hopefully someone is forming. Likewise with Helium & Carbon 14. Keep up the good work.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
I truly admire that you read the link and saw what Bianca missed, and you told her about these points against her thesis despite you being a young-Earth creationist. This is amazing. I am speechless. Maybe there are communication channels after all. Not with the main creationist quacks. After all their business is lying. But at least there might be communication with the common creationist. Those who have just trusted the quacks and thus not know much better.
I know that you don't think scientists are right about the age of our planet, but you proved to me that honesty is in the list of at least one creationist. Thanks Pete.
:-)
Peter Law 10+
Like the new 'you', very sophisticated.
I do try & read from both sides, but isn't the point that these two alleged routes for salt out of the sea are less than convincing. An uplift removes zero water from the sea; maybe some salt trapped in the mud at the bottom, but not from the sea itself.
Likewise with subduction. It at least is a possibility, but how do we measure this? Gut reaction would be that very little water would escape the sea this way. More likely that the mantle would escape into the sea, given the probable pressure differences.
Your side seems to think that the sea salt is in balance; we can (after a fashion) measure the input; but how do we measure the output? May I be forgiven for not just believing scientists when they say it is in balance? I will if I get a tangible mechanism.
That's some post; my head is twice normal size; I hope Matt reads it!
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
I knew you did not trust scientists, and I knew that you did not agree with the salt-out mechanisms too much. But that's besides the main point: that the guy mentioned at least two ways for salt out, and that you noticed it.
I don't know yet how they measure/estimate/calculate how much salt goes out by plate tectonics. As for the uplifts. You seem to be imagining that uplifts rise the ocean floor as a tip of sorts, but no. The uplifts can elevate huge basins and salty-water kept up there isolated from the ocean until it evaporates leaving lots of salt up there. Other times huge volumes of water have been isolated from the main oceans by land formations and evaporated leaving salt deposits behind. There is more, and I found the stuff to be quite interesting, but that's, again, besides the point. The point being that you are an example of possible civil and honest communication. You might not agree with me too much. But at least you saw what Bianca did not. Thus I was at least partially wrong about these possibilities for communication (I should have remembered our other exchanges. Those exchanges have been civil, but no way of knowing if you were getting something out of them). That is some advance I would say. But if there is hope for more and better is still an open question. One where my hopes are not high at all.
Peter Law 10+
I take your point about uplifts. However the salinity of the oceans worldwide would not be affected by portions being isolated & evaporated. Hence any age calculation made on the oceans would be unaffected by uplifts.
Of course whether one accepts a worldwide flood or not is also relevant, but I better not chance my luck farther.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
In order for the evaporated basins not to change the salt concentration of the oceans, you would have to say that none of the evaporated water goes back to the oceans. Then what do you suppose happens with the evaporated water?
:-)
Peter Law 10+
Yes some of it will find it's way to the sea, and some will find it's way back to the separated sea. Difficult to assess just what difference there would be overall. I guess it would depend on the shape of the surrounding land.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
You asked: "Can’t you see how they got to this?" and followed with a wild speculation. I on the other hand, checked a lot of information, both from academic resources, and from creationist propaganda too. I know how they "got to this." It was not the way you suggest at all. But you can check by yourself.
Dan F 50+
I compulsively studied in college. I was a naturalist at heart and biology and chemistry opened my world up and it did not weave well with my religion. That part of my life became frozen in time.
Religious organizations endorse ignorance as bliss, especially in science. Their appeal is persuasion and common to that tactic is that the awe and wonder of the world is beyond man's comprehension. They certainly have the advantage of inspiring music, rich traditions and are more numerous than nonbelievers, but one thing is missing -- perspective. The evidence and knowledge of the physical world can set you free from this kind of self deception, but it requires an open mind and it is not achieved without the discipline of study.
So should we try to get along together? I stand for liberty and what I believe. I have that and do that and somehow have good friends that agree to disagree with me on religion and other things for that matter and that's fine with me. I feel extremely lucky to live in a country that enables this personal liberty. No one should underestimate how contentious and dangerous such a position can be for the nonbeliever where religious zealots rule many parts of the world.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Robert Reich said "the truth is not midway between two falsehoods"
Kevin Hernandez
Ah but then that would be to assume that atheism and religion are false. Atheist's and devout believers don't feel that way. Religion goes deep with people no matter if God could be rendered untrue or not.
" Learning to let go of fear, look past one's one ego and self-righteousness and recognizing the potential value of each human being would allow them to find some understanding and appreciation of each others beliefs"
I agree with this nonetheless!
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
In the Christian gospels, Jesus consistently rails against this. The logic and reason that militant atheists espouse would do the same.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 100+
but. to be positive, i think you indeed answered the question. and the answer is: we need to somehow reduce the religious zeal, and start a reasonable, adult conversation about things.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
伟彬 陈
伟彬 陈
Cheyenne Lin
Kevin Hernandez
The present time I can't see how this can possibly unfold unless we have a mature and reasonable debate all around about this.
Joe Delsen 20+
Christopher Scheidler 20+
and I think religious folks shouldn't get in arms when religion slips out of things.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Conversely, I am tired of people saying that Muslims are all a certain way because the Koran tells them to. Just like many Christians, many Muslims don't chose a literal interpretation of their sacred text. People tend to forget that the Bible asks Christians and Jews to do and believe some crazy stuff too and most just don't do it because by so many other standards, it's wrong. So I don't want to have to hear "oh they are like that, it's in the Koran".
To that I add the more secular a religious person is, the better. Secularism is necessary for all beliefs to flourish without preferential treatment.
Bianca De-Chandos
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Bianca De-Chandos
Bianca De-Chandos
Comment deleted
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Kevin Hernandez