Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

except that statement belonged to Warthaug

I know, I was saying that YOUR statement was false, which it was. You apparently missed the humor. Let's move on. You were logging off, IIRC.

 

[sheck33]

Two ocean masses that have different densities will flow, the pressure differential is not the driving force.

Incorrect.

nevermind, we were not talking about the same pressure differential.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Two ocean masses that have different densities will flow, the pressure differential is not the driving force.

Incorrect.

Nonsense. Read Soggy's explanation. He knows more about it than you do. Afterward, if you still insist that fluid can flow without a pressure differential, please provide the math that illustrates such.

 

[MikeFerrara]

nevermind, we were not talking about the same pressure differential.

Ahhhhh...I see what pressure you were talking about. I'm glad. I was starting to worry about you

 

[deco_martini]

I've educated myself quite well. How about you? You seem to parrot the one-liners you've been fed since birth...ever do any real science and question its validity?

Then tell me this. Why is it chemists, geologists, archaeologists, biologists, physicists and all these other so-called experts are so wrong about dating the age of earth?

Why is it so more likely that all these people with years in their fields and peer reviewed work are so wrong but you are right with your self-education? Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Doesn't some synapse in your brain wonder how almost the entire learned scientific community could get it wrong but only people who have never done true scientific work in the field can get it right?

I am dubious of the claim that anyone could be self-educated extremely well and not understand how accurate all the various dating methods are when used in combination. This is a self-discrediting revelation.

Disclaimer: I was raised in a fundamentalist household and taught all the popular myths like how there was a missing link, how Darwin death bed recanted, how dating methods aren't reliable, and so forth. But having a fundamentalist preacher teach you about evolution is like having an Amish guy teach about fundamentals of computer circuit design. They are out of their league and completely ignorant of the subject only knowing hearsay about it themselves. I became suspicious of what was going on when I figured out most of what I had been told about evolution was misinformation.

If you really want to self-educate, spend some time reading the archive at TalkOrigins and catch up on current science.

 

[Soggy]

Ahhhhh...I see what pressure you were talking about. I'm glad. I was starting to worry about you

Fill me in, I want to know, I want to know!

 

[Thalassamania]

In response to idiocy posted by ce4jesus:

Steady state in the oceans isn't due to its ability to get rid of the salts. Moreover, it has more to do with the tides, currents, winds, and pure vastness of the bodies of water. As one of your website stated, it takes up to 200million years for it to "get rid" of some of the dissolved substances. The bottom line is the dead sea obviously didn't follow this line of reasoning. The oceans are very dynamic and I'll be the first to say you can't put them into a static model but its quite obvious that some bodies of water have reached a level as to be considered "dead".
​

I said:

Hint2: Ocean circulation is driven by differences in density between water masses.
​

To which you responded:

Fluid flow is driven by a pressure differential.
​

And I corrected you:

And what is it that you think creates the pressure differential? A god? A black hole? Chocolate bars? No ... it's density differences between water masses.
​

And you responded:

Congrats! Unlike sheck, you are at least able to see that without a pressure differential there is no flow.

I'm no oceanographer but I still wouldn't guess that black holes or chocolate bars are behind it.
​

But you were wrong in the first place, the driving force is not the pressure differential, it's the tendency of each piece of water to seek its potential density depth. Now if you really want to argue with me, argue about something that is not a matter of opinion, but that is just a matter of fact, go for it ... but you're really wasting both of our time, don't you think?

The issue that you do not understand the actual meaning of the terms that you're flinging about and then, ex post facto, you try to mash what you thought the words meant into what those of us in the field use those words to actually mean.

Let's just drop this line of discourse. Chalk it up to us evil scientists knowing more about science. Okay?

 

[MikeFerrara]

One liners? I've read books on astrophysics, relativity, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, evolution, and a number of other topics.

Hats off to you...honest, no sarcasm intended.

Additionally, I'm married to a good Catholic girl and attend church services pretty frequently as a result of family obligation, so I'm not ignorant to Christian beliefs.

I have attended a few Catholic masses in my time but I never really figured out what was going on until much later. Of course, I also remember when Mass was said mostly in Latin and that didn't help.

 

[Soggy]

I have attended a few Catholic masses in my time but I never really figured out what was going on until much later. Of course, I also remember when Mass was said mostly in Latin and that didn't help.

In my former life, I was a musician and used to play at church services for a variety of denominations including having had the "fortune" to sit through a few full 3 hr long latin Catholic masses. It's pretty rough. My wife's family church is much more down to earth and while I don't agree with many of the base premises, I do usually find something within the Priest's sermons to relate to. Since we got married within the church, we also had to attend Pre-Cana which I was pleasantly surprised with. I know not all pre-Cana classes are like this, but ours was a 2 day thing where we spent most of the time talking about very practical matters with one another. There was the requisite section on "Natural Family Planning," but even that was presented in a pretty honest manner.

 

[Thalassamania]

Then tell me this. Why is it chemists, geologists, archaeologists, biologists, physicists and all these other so-called experts are so wrong about dating the age of earth.

Why is it so more likely that all these people with years in their fields and peer reviewed work are so wrong but you are right with your self-education? Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Doesn't some synapse in your brain wonder how almost the entire learned scientific community could get it wrong but only people who have never done true scientific work in the field can get it right?

I am dubious of the claim that anyone could be self-educated extremely well and not understand how accurate all the various dating methods are when used in combination. This is a self-discrediting revelation.

Disclaimer: I was raised in a fundamentalist household and taught all the popular myths like how there was missing link, how Darwin death bed recanted, how dating methods aren't reliable, and so forth. But having a fundamentalist preacher teach you about evolution is like having an Amish guy teach about fundamentals of computer circuit design. They are out of their league and completely ignorant of the subject only knowing hearsay about it themselves. I became suspicious of what was going on when I figured out most of what I had been told about evolution were misinformation.

If you really want to self-educate, spend some time reading the archive at TalkOrigins and catch up on current science.

Nicely said, thanks.

I've educated myself quite well. How about you? You seem to parrot the one-liners you've been fed since birth...ever do any real science and question its validity?

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist." Dr. Peter Venkman.