Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[ERayR]

A flood that covered the entire planet, whether 4,000, 6,000, 10,000, 25,000, or 100,000 years ago would have left all lakes tainted with a certain percentage salt water. Lakes usually have relatively equal in- and out-flow, they reach a point of equilibrity. Lakes that do not have an outflow that equals the inflow will usually increase in salt levels. The Dead Sea has no outflow at all, and considerable amounts of water dissipate by evaporation. The salt levels of the Dead Sea are and have been increasing for a million years, since its sinking below outflow possibilities.

 

How do you figure that to be so?

[danielwoods]

Question for young-earthers: Did Noah's flood melt the Antarctic ice? 

 

No. Rather the flood event caused a build up of ice, and what we call the great ice age. 

[pogi]

No. Rather the flood event caused a build up of ice, and what we call the great ice age. 

 

Boy you guys get creative.  150 day ice age?

[SmileyMcGee]

No. Rather the flood event caused a build up of ice, and what we call the great ice age.

Amazing...so much science so easily disregarded in favor of what must amount to denialism, conspiracy theory, and pseudoscience.

Edited February 23, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[danielwoods]

Boy you guys get creative.  150 day ice age?

 

Not sure what you mean by 150 day ice age? I'm pretty sure the ice age lasted quite a while. 

 

Amazing...so much science so easily disregarded in favor of what must amount to denialism, conspiracy theory, and pseudoscience.

 

What is interesting is the dogmatic attitudes about things never seen before. 

[pogi]

Not sure what you mean by 150 day ice age? I'm pretty sure the ice age lasted quite a while. 

 

The water from the flood only lasted 150 days. 

[SmileyMcGee]

Not sure what you mean by 150 day ice age? I'm pretty sure the ice age lasted quite a while.

What is interesting is the dogmatic attitudes about things never seen before.

The irony...

[bcuzbcuz]

How do you figure that to be so?

Next time you're in Salt Lake valley, take a look around at the old, very old beach line on the mountians surrounding the valley. Note how that line is at the same height. The ancient Lake drained, leaving what we know as Salt Lake now. The water level dropped so low that more water comes into the lake than what flows out. Evaporation has had quite an effect but there many larger lakes that do not drop their levels to that extent. Salt Lake is getting saltier...despite the salt company scooping up the salt and putting it in small boxes.

The Dead Sea is several steps worse. It's a lot saltier. The process is the same. Water comes in bearing salts and minerals, no water leaves in the out-flow to shuffle these chemicals further.

Baikal Lake is huge and extremely deep. The Soviets tried to change rivers and outflow and built dams, but Baikal is still getting a relatively equal in and out flow. But its gigantic depth would seem to be a perfect place for stored super cold saline waters. If it were so, salt fish might thrive there. But it isn't salt and the sea animals are all endemic fresh water species.

How did they get there? This is just the "kangaroo question" stated in a different manner. How did endemic species end up where they are without someone (Noah???) putting them there.

You're not a young earther? could have fooled me.

[ERayR]

Next time you're in Salt Lake valley, take a look around at the old, very old beach line on the mountians surrounding the valley. Note how that line is at the same height. The ancient Lake drained, leaving what we know as Salt Lake now. The water level dropped so low that more water comes into the lake than what flows out. Evaporation has had quite an effect but there many larger lakes that do not drop their levels to that extent. Salt Lake is getting saltier...despite the salt company scooping up the salt and putting it in small boxes.

The Dead Sea is several steps worse. It's a lot saltier. The process is the same. Water comes in bearing salts and minerals, no water leaves in the out-flow to shuffle these chemicals further.

Baikal Lake is huge and extremely deep. The Soviets tried to change rivers and outflow and built dams, but Baikal is still getting a relatively equal in and out flow. But its gigantic depth would seem to be a perfect place for stored super cold saline waters. If it were so, salt fish might thrive there. But it isn't salt and the sea animals are all endemic fresh water species.

How did they get there? This is just the "kangaroo question" stated in a different manner. How did endemic species end up where they are without someone (Noah???) putting them there.

You're not a young earther? could have fooled me.

 

I see a fallacy to your reasoning.  Just as the inflow now stays on top until it is expelled by outflow it seems reasonable to me that the same thing happened with the flood waters.  They came in on top and flowed out from the top.

 

I do not claim that is the way it happened but given the facts you gave it is a reasonable explanation.

[SmileyMcGee]

I see a fallacy to your reasoning. Just as the inflow now stays on top until it is expelled by outflow it seems reasonable to me that the same thing happened with the flood waters. They came in on top and flowed out from the top.

I do not claim that is the way it happened but given the facts you gave it is a reasonable explanation.

Removed Edited February 24, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

I see a fallacy to your reasoning.  Just as the inflow now stays on top until it is expelled by outflow it seems reasonable to me that the same thing happened with the flood waters.  They came in on top and flowed out from the top.

 

I do not claim that is the way it happened but given the facts you gave it is a reasonable explanation.

Saltwater is heavier than freshwater.  Wouldn't it sink and not float on top even if it was somewhat warmer?

[thesometimesaint]

Basically that only happens in a Supersaturated solution at any given temperature above absolute zero. Diffusion is to equilibrium much more the norm.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_diffusion

[danielwoods]

The water from the flood only lasted 150 days. 

 

Right. The ice lasted much longer. The effects on the whole planet are more than what Noah and his family were able to observe. 

 

 

 

The irony...

 

As I have stated, show me the facts. It's the dogmatic interpretation that makes people think they have facts when the actually don't. 

 

If you think I'm dogmatic, show me some facts to disprove my position. I've changed my position radically from when I started this journey. 

[thesometimesaint]

Right. The ice lasted much longer. The effects on the whole planet are more than what Noah and his family were able to observe. 

 

As I have stated, show me the facts. It's the dogmatic interpretation that makes people think they have facts when the actually don't. 

 

If you think I'm dogmatic, show me some facts to disprove my position. I've changed my position radically from when I started this journey. 

 

Ice floats. Centrifugal force would have forced all the ice at the poles towards the equator.

[bcuzbcuz]

I see a fallacy to your reasoning.  Just as the inflow now stays on top until it is expelled by outflow it seems reasonable to me that the same thing happened with the flood waters.  They came in on top and flowed out from the top.

 

I do not claim that is the way it happened but given the facts you gave it is a reasonable explanation.

I see a fallacy to your reasoning.  Just as the inflow now stays on top until it is expelled by outflow it seems reasonable to me that the same thing happened with the flood waters.  They came in on top and flowed out from the top.

 

I do not claim that is the way it happened but given the facts you gave it is a reasonable explanation.

Saltwater is heavier. It will sink to the bottom.

[pogi]

Right. The ice lasted much longer. The effects on the whole planet are more than what Noah and his family were able to observe. 

 

Let me get this straight, the flood comes, and within 150 days enough ice forms from the flood waters to cover a vast part of the globe?  That is one serious cold-front and instant ice-age!

 

As I have stated, show me the facts. It's the dogmatic interpretation that makes people think they have facts when the actually don't. 

 

If you think I'm dogmatic, show me some facts to disprove my position. I've changed my position radically from when I started this journey. 

 

 I think smiley is only pointing out the irony in that you also have no evidence for your dogmatic interpretations of scripture.  It is not up to others to disprove your position, the burden of proof is yours to support your claims.  Where is the evidence?

[danielwoods]

Let me get this straight, the flood comes, and within 150 days enough ice forms from the flood waters to cover a vast part of the globe?  That is one serious cold-front and instant ice-age!

 

 

 I think smiley is only pointing out the irony in that you also have no evidence for your dogmatic interpretations of scripture.  It is not up to others to disprove your position, the burden of proof is yours to support your claims.  Where is the evidence?

 

How long do you think it should take for ice to freeze in sub zero temps at the Poles? 

 

If the earth is deluged with water, the water that travels to the north and south poles will freeze, and stay there, building up. 

 

As far as evidence, what I do is interpret the same data/evidence that we all have, differently, and no I'm not dogmatic about it, I am open to new ideas. The flood model explains things better (in my opinion) in light of the fact that evolution is devoid of actual observable evidence to support it's position that natural selection acting with mutations is enough to build new designs from non-living matter. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by danielwoods

[Uncle Dale]

Let me get this straight, the flood comes, and within 150 days enough ice forms from the flood waters to cover a vast part of the globe?  

...

 

 

Not only that, but (by some miracle, I suppose) the great sheets of

ice created by the flood in the days of Noah, so formed as to mimic

perfectly hundreds of thousands of annual precipitation accumulation

layers (complete with entrapped air bubbles, the chemistry of which

changes throughout those layers, consistent with eons-long evolution

of the earth's atmosphere).

 

Embedded within those ice layers (and occasionally discovered) are

hundreds of thousands of meteorite fragments, layers of volcanic ash, 

even thin deposits of wind-blown soil...

 

Quite a feat for Mother Nature to perform in 150 days, eh?

 

UD

 

Then again the young-earthers tell us that God created mountains

with fake folded strata and fake embedded fossils, all in a day.

Compared to the instantaneous creation of earth's mountain

ranges, 150 days of complex ice formation is child's play.

[pogi]

How long do you think it should take for ice to freeze in sub zero temps at the Poles? 

 

Here in Utah, we might get 12 inches of ice at any given reservoir within a 150 day period.    No where near the 9,000 ft thick ice at the southern pole with its annual layers that Uncle Dale mentions.  Remember, an ice age is not just frozen sea water at the poles either, it is enormous glaciers covering entire continents.  Did that all happen in 150 days?  

 

Also, none of this is biblical, so where is the evidence?  Do you even have any biblical evidence for this instant ice-age?  I don't remember hearing about this biblical global drop in temperature.

Edited February 24, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

Let me get this straight, the flood comes, and within 150 days enough ice forms from the flood waters to cover a vast part of the globe?  That is one serious cold-front and instant ice-age!

 

 

 

I have seen one theory (can't find it right now) that ice asteroids hit the earth at the poles.

[SmileyMcGee]

I have seen one theory (can't find it right now) that ice asteroids hit the earth at the poles.

It's not a scientific theory; it's pseudoscience put forth by Kent Hovind. Edited February 24, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Right. The ice lasted much longer. The effects on the whole planet are more than what Noah and his family were able to observe.

As I have stated, show me the facts. It's the dogmatic interpretation that makes people think they have facts when the actually don't.

If you think I'm dogmatic, show me some facts to disprove my position. I've changed my position radically from when I started this journey.

A great primer on evolution and the evidence for it can be found at http://evolution.berkeley.edu. By reviewing the evidence you'll see that the theory of evolution has both explanatory and predictive power. If you don't accept the science as evidence then that is a different matter. Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[ERayR]

It's not a scientific theory; it's pseudoscience put forth by Kent Hovind.

 

Could one of you just once refute something without calling it pseudoscience?

[SmileyMcGee]

Could one of you just once refute something without calling it pseudoscience?

I would recommend researching whether water could remain frozen during such an impact as one between a comet and a planet.

[Stargazer]

Observation is just a small but important part of the Scientific Method. IE; Ptolemy observed the night sky. The explanations he gave for what he saw gave sway for thousands of years. Giordano Bruno got burned up over it. Galileo was house bound for his observations, and thoughts concerning them. Without either there can be no science.

 

It is self defeating to claim to know nothing. We are more than just dust under the feet of the Gods. By the same token it is hubris to the max to claim to know everything. There is much more to learn. The glory of God is intelligence.

It appears you're trying to argue with me over this topic, but it won't work because I don't necessarily disagree with you over it. For example, I agree 100% with both your paragraphs above.

I have some quibbles over certain details in your first paragraph, but that's all. If Galileo lived in the time of Ptolemy he might very well have been in complete agreement with him. But he had the telescope, so he was able to observe things Ptolemy could not.

I still say that Observation is the heart of science. But Observation depends greatly upon Tools. Better Tools, better Observations, and this provides better Data (and more of it) for Intellect to work with.

Ptolemy had no reason to think that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old. We have the advantage over him, but not because we are smarter. We have better tools and better observations.