There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[Pogo]

I didn't say it was a YEC reference, I said it was irrelevant to the YEC argument that salt concentrations have relevance to the age of the earth. I actually read and understood the article which was about the Archean climate when life didn't even use oxygen and a model that can also be used to massive changes in today's conditions.

 

[McBell]

I didn't say it was a YEC reference, I said it was irrelevant to the YEC argument that salt concentrations have relevance to the age of the earth. I actually read and understood the article which was about the Archean climate when life didn't even use oxygen and a model that can also be used to massive changes in today's conditions.

Seems they are really proud that it was not a YEC source.
That it had nothing to do with the topic at hand is of no matter.
It was NOT a YEC source.

baby steps, you know.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

"The influence of atmospheric composition on the climates of present‐day and early Earth has been studied extensively, but the role of ocean composition has received less attention. We use the ROCKE‐3D ocean‐atmosphere general circulation model to investigate the response of Earth's present‐day and Archean climate system to low versus high ocean salinity"

It pays to read...rather than selectively scan! It is naturalism that claims the past can be used to study the present...the unifornatarian principle ignores catastrophic events such as a global flood despite evidence that supports it happened

 

[Pogo]

What does any of this have to do with your argument about the age of the earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The influence of atmospheric composition on the climates of present‐day and early Earth has been studied extensively, but the role of ocean composition has received less attention. We use the ROCKE‐3D ocean‐atmosphere general circulation model to investigate the response of Earth's present‐day and Archean climate system to low versus high ocean salinity"

It pays to read...rather than selectively scan! It is naturalism that claims the past can be used to study the present...the unifornatarian principle ignores catastrophic events such as a global flood despite evidence that supports it happened

No, uniformitarianism does not ignore catastrophic events and there is no scientific evidence that I know of for the mythical flood of Noah.

In fact you probably do not have any evidence. What you probably have are just ad hoc explanations. And those are worthless in a debate. Let me post you a definition of scientific evidence. If you do not like the source I can get others:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please note. To even have scientific evidence at the very least you need a scientific hypothesis. So, what is your testable hypothesis and what observations support it?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

What does any of this have to do with your argument about the age of the earth?

eh? I think you need to find another topic to discuss as asking that question suggests that this is way over your pay grade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

eh? I think you need to find another topic to discuss as asking that question suggests that this is way over your pay grade.

Oh my! The irony!

 

[Pogo]

eh? I think you need to find another topic to discuss as asking that question suggests that this is way over your pay grade.

Well in that case why don't you demonstrate your wisdom and make all of us here better for it?

Many of us come here to learn things not just for entertainment.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, uniformitarianism does not ignore catastrophic events and there is no scientific evidence that I know of for the mythical flood of Noah.

In fact you probably do not have any evidence. What you probably have are just ad hoc explanations. And those are worthless in a debate. Let me post you a definition of scientific evidence. If you do not like the source I can get others:

subduction, I am really sorry that you lost your faith and have gone down this pathway. However, there are a lot of PHD qualified individuals in the Creation camp who research and write extensively about this topic.

Id suggesat that you are claiming none of those PHD qualified individuals are credible because they disagree with your view. All of their evidence that supports their claims must be false simply because Christopher Hitchens said so! Let me remind you, Christopher Hitchens entire world view has a very significant flaw...

There is a very large percentage of the population in the US who play Lotto...57% (181 milion people) they do so in the hope that they will win!

So whether or not you accept this fact, philosophically Pascals Wager applies and peole are willing to take chances with leaps of faith...and they will regularly throw good money at such endeavours. If Christopher Hitchens wakes up alongside Christians, he is going to regret not having "played lotto"!

If one doesnt take a chance on God, one is condeming oneself against any possibility that Christianity might be right.

The problem with that is that there is a wealth of historical evidence that supports the consistency of the Bible narrative (this even Hitchen could not deny). Given that historical support, its not much of a leap of faith to take the next step and believe that Christ really did raise Himself from the dead as prophesied in John 2:19!

18On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?”​

​

19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”​

​

20“This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?”​

​

21But Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body. 22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Well in that case why don't you demonstrate your wisdom and make all of us here better for it?

Many of us come here to learn things not just for entertainment.

ok, then take it like this...think back to your school days and imagine your classroom teachers response to questions such as that. As i recall being a student in school and given i was also a school teacher, your question is nothing more than a stupid timewasting disctraction coming from a student who is clowning around!

If your question is genuine, then at least ask it in a manner that befits the importance of the question.

 

[Pogo]

However, there are a lot of PHD qualified individuals in the Creation camp who research and write extensively about this topic.

Please show us 5 links to peer reviewed scientific papers not "published" on creationist websites and we can learn from them.

 

[McBell]

subduction, I am really sorry that you lost your faith and have gone down this pathway. However, there are a lot of PHD qualified individuals in the Creation camp who research and write extensively about this topic.

You do know there is a huge difference between scientific research and the conformational bias that Creationists call research, right?

There is a very large percentage of the population in the US who play Lotto...57% (181 milion people) they do so in the hope that they will win!

If belief in God is nothing more than like playing the lotto...

So whether or not you accept this fact, philosophically Pascals Wager applies and peole are willing to take chances with leaps of faith...and they will regularly throw good money at such endeavours. If Christopher Hitchens wakes up alongside Christians, he is going to regret not having "played lotto"!

If your favorite chosen deity is fooled by Pacals wager, then it is not worthy of being called "God".

If one doesnt take a chance on God, one is condeming oneself against any possibility that Christianity might be right.

The same can be said of all the other millions of religions.
So what?

The problem with that is that there is a wealth of historical evidence that supports the consistency of the Bible narrative

This is a popular claim from religionists.
Will you be the one to finally show it is true?

 

[McBell]

ok, then take it like this...think back to your school days and imagine your classroom teachers response to questions such as that. As i recall both being a student in school and given i was also a school teacher, your question is nothing more than a stupid timewasting disctraction coming from a student who is clowning around!

If your question is genuine, then at least ask it in a manner that befits the importance of the question.

Is this your long winded way of saying that you can not?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Please show us 5 links to peer reviewed scientific papers not "published" on creationist websites and we can learn from them.

what?

Let me get this straight...you will only believe evidence based on peer review and non christian references?

You have heard of Piltown man right? The orangutan/neanderthal lie that went on in secular circles for 5 decades!

My point is, i do not claim no error on either side. What i do claim is which story best answers my Epistomological questions.

If one is only going to answer those questions on peer reviewed in secular circles, one will never find any support for God. For an atheist that doesnt matter, but for any Christian (even a Theistic one i would suggest) it most certainly does matter.

I follow the lead of the likes of Stephen Myer, Michael Behee and others not because i agree with everything they claim, but there are elements of what they claim i do agree with because it makes sense to me given my theological knowledge of the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"The influence of atmospheric composition on the climates of present‐day and early Earth has been studied extensively, but the role of ocean composition has received less attention. We use the ROCKE‐3D ocean‐atmosphere general circulation model to investigate the response of Earth's present‐day and Archean climate system to low versus high ocean salinity"

It pays to read...rather than selectively scan! It is naturalism that claims the past can be used to study the present...the unifornatarian principle ignores catastrophic events such as a global flood despite evidence that supports it happened

There is no evidence that a global flood happened.

 

[Pogo]

ok, then take it like this...think back to your school days and imagine your classroom teachers response to questions such as that. As i recall both being a student in school and given i was also a school teacher, your question is nothing more than a stupid timewasting disctraction coming from a student who is clowning around!

If your question is genuine, then at least ask it in a manner that befits the importance of the question.

OK, the OP topic of discussion is SBTL's claim that there is not enough erosion for the earth to be old. I picked up the thread when some where arguing that the salinity of the oceans was evidence for this and disagreed. You responded with two links one irrelevant one about how to calculate residence times which I pointed out was irrelevant because residence times such as 2-10 days for water vapor are not relevant to the length of the systems existence. I gather you have accepted that as you haven't responded.
You also posted a link to

The Effect of Ocean Salinity on Climate and Its Implications for Earth's Habitability​

which you first claimed I claimed it was a YEC article, upon disabusing you of that notion, I read it again and determined that it is a discussion of a model of some climatic effects of various levels of salinity. It was primarily aimed at the early earth but because it is a useful model it could also be applied to massive changes in the current levels of salinity. You bolded a sentence in the paper but I could not see how it supports your argument. here are the keywords for the paper. Keywords: Archean Earth, Faint Young Sun, habitability, salinity, GCM, climate
nothing about the age of the earth.

I left the forum to live my life and came back and going back to the original conversation asked what this paper you posted had to do with salinity and calculating the age of the earth.

You claimed teaching experience and asked for a more complete question and so I have endeavored to do so above, please have the courtesy to respond in more fullness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

eh? I think you need to find another topic to discuss as asking that question suggests that this is way over your pay grade.

I agree. The irony.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

what?

Let me get this straight...you will only believe evidence based on peer review and non christian references?

You have heard of Piltown man right? The orangutan/neanderthal lie that went on in secular circles for 5 decades!

My point is, i do not claim no error on either side. What i do claim is which story best answers my Epistomological questions.

If one is only going to answer those questions on peer reviewed in secular circles, one will never find any support for God. For an atheist that doesnt matter, but for any Christian (even a Theistic one i would suggest) it most certainly does matter.

I follow the lead of the likes of Stephen Myer, Michael Behee and others not because i agree with everything they claim, but there are elements of what they claim i do agree with because it makes sense to me given my theological knowledge of the Bible.

This is an old canard.

Piltdown was a fraud carried out by an ametuer. It was not fully accepted and was eventually determined to be a fraud by scientists. You know, the people you make fun of.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I left the forum to live my life and came back and going back to the original conversation asked what this paper you posted had to do with salinity and calculating the age of the earth.

You claimed teaching experience and asked for a more complete question and so I have endeavored to do so above, please have the courtesy to respond in more fullness.

I have responded to the relevant complaints in your response with DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!

if you are going to respond to direct references with your interpretation, then you are ignorant of what the article authors actually state in their own words.

A person who continues to respond in the manner that you do is timewasting and it reminds me of a statement from the movie Forest Gump "stupid is stupid does sir"

 

[Subduction Zone]

subduction, I am really sorry that you lost your faith and have gone down this pathway. However, there are a lot of PHD qualified individuals in the Creation camp who research and write extensively about this topic.

No, not really. I have seen some of their work and it is easily shown to be wrong. Quite often the mistakes are so gross that they have to be lying. But that is besides the point. You claimed that there was evidence. You need to be able to present evidence when you make that claim.

Id suggesat that you are claiming none of those PHD qualified individuals are credible because they disagree with your view. All of their evidence that supports their claims must be false simply because Christopher Hitchens said so! Let me remind you, Christopher Hitchens entire world view has a very significant flaw...

No, none of these people are credible because it is easy to refute their false claims. It is why none of it is peer reviewed.

There is a very large percentage of the population in the US who play Lotto...57% (181 milion people) they do so in the hope that they will win!

So whether or not you accept this fact, philosophically Pascals Wager applies and peole are willing to take chances with leaps of faith...and they will regularly throw good money at such endeavours. If Christopher Hitchens wakes up alongside Christians, he is going to regret not having "played lotto"!

If one doesnt take a chance on God, one is condeming oneself against any possibility that Christianity might be right.

The problem with that is that there is a wealth of historical evidence that supports the consistency of the Bible narrative (this even Hitchen could not deny). Given that historical support, its not much of a leap of faith to take the next step and believe that Christ really did raise Himself from the dead as prophesied in John 2:19!

18On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?”​

​

19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”​

​

20“This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?”​

​

21But Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body. 22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.​

Now you are totally off of your other failed claim and using Pascal's wager. Another terribly failed argument that is based upon a false dichotomy. The possibilities are not just your God and atheism. Do you understand that? The possibilities are your God and all of the other man made gods versus atheism. Many of those versions of god will punish a person worse if they believe in the wrong god than they would if a person was an atheist. And unlike the lottery that only costs you a buck or two to play according to the rules of the Bible it costs a person a lot more to play the game of Christianity. A tenth of your earnings are supposed to go to your version of god. That ain't cheap.