Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86, Matt8819, amok

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#261  Postby MrFungus420 » Feb 23, 2012 12:22 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:


They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Neither.

Massive amount of rain (fresh water) mixed in with oceans (salt water) changes the concentration of salt in the water.

When that brackish water overflows the bounds of the ocean and floods into fresh-water sources such as lakes, it will add salt to the fresh water.

Since the gills of fish are function based on the salinity of their native environment, in waters with different salinity, they die. Both fresh-water and salt-water fish. All dead.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#262  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 12:29 pm

:this: Well explained.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#263  Postby surreptitious57 » Feb 23, 2012 12:32 pm

Does not the event horizon of a black
hole increase the more matter it absorbs
And presumably this is not always absolutely
exponential as that would depend on what was
in the particular gravitational field surrounding it

Can you explain the paradox of time reversible
laws of physics in a linear Universe where one can
only go forward but not back [ now travelling forward
at relative light speed would save time if travelling back
but one would be doing so in the present and not the past ]
The example of travelling to Andromeda at 99.9999999999999
per cent c which I believe appears in Why E = mc 2 by Brian Cox

Are the laws of physics governing the singularity of the Big
Bang same as those governing the singularity of a black hole
What is the significance of each galaxy having one at its centre
a thousand times smaller than it : does this not suggest causation
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 5516

Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#264  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2012 12:49 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:


They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Oh for fuck's sake, this has to be one of the most retarded answers I've ever seen. Did you not learn anything in basic chemistry lessons? Such as what happens to the concentration of dissolved substances when you dilute them? Only covering the planet with an extra nine kilometres of water would dilute the oceans substantially. As a result, the salinity of the oceans would drop to the point where it impacted fatally upon the osmoregulatory systems of coral reef fishes and invertebrates, amongst others. On the other hand, being subject to a rapid net increase in salinity, because of the wholesale deluging of the freshwater bodies of the planet in rising seawater during the early stages of the fantasy "global flood", would exterminate a large number of freshwater aquatic organisms, including virtually all the Ostariophysan fishes, several species of which are current inmates of my aquaria.

In addition, not only would all the freshwater aquatic plants be destroyed by salinity changes, they would also be destroyed by finding themselves under an extra nine kilometres of water. Light only penetrates the oceans to a maximum depth of around 500 metres. The photic zone, which is the region within which photosynthesis can take place, extends to only 200 metres. This cutting off from sunlight would also kill the symbiotic zooxanthellae living within coral polyps, and as a consequence, all the world's reef building corals would have been exterminated. That all these taxa are still alive, tells us your fantasy flood never happened.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 17080
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#265  Postby MattHunX » Feb 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Lion IRC wrote:The Christian doest say, gaps ---> therefore God.

Instead, they say...God ---> what gaps?


And that's different how? :-|

Both of those lines of reasoning reek of intellectual laziness and intellectual cowardice. A comfortable state of blissful ignorance attained by conforming to dogma-shaped tradition. :nono:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10055

Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#266  Postby MattHunX » Feb 23, 2012 2:03 pm

MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:

They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Neither.

Massive amount of rain (fresh water) mixed in with oceans (salt water) changes the concentration of salt in the water.

When that brackish water overflows the bounds of the ocean and floods into fresh-water sources such as lakes, it will add salt to the fresh water.

Since the gills of fish are function based on the salinity of their native environment, in waters with different salinity, they die. Both fresh-water and salt-water fish. All dead.



:this:

Calilasseia wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:

They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Oh for fuck's sake, this has to be one of the most retarded answers I've ever seen. Did you not learn anything in basic chemistry lessons? Such as what happens to the concentration of dissolved substances when you dilute them? Only covering the planet with an extra nine kilometres of water would dilute the oceans substantially. As a result, the salinity of the oceans would drop to the point where it impacted fatally upon the osmoregulatory systems of coral reef fishes and invertebrates, amongst others. On the other hand, being subject to a rapid net increase in salinity, because of the wholesale deluging of the freshwater bodies of the planet in rising seawater during the early stages of the fantasy "global flood", would exterminate a large number of freshwater aquatic organisms, including virtually all the Ostariophysan fishes, several species of which are current inmates of my aquaria.

In addition, not only would all the freshwater aquatic plants be destroyed by salinity changes, they would also be destroyed by finding themselves under an extra nine kilometres of water. Light only penetrates the oceans to a maximum depth of around 500 metres. The photic zone, which is the region within which photosynthesis can take place, extends to only 200 metres. This cutting off from sunlight would also kill the symbiotic zooxanthellae living within coral polyps, and as a consequence, all the world's reef building corals would have been exterminated. That all these taxa are still alive, tells us your fantasy flood never happened.


And :this:

:cheers:

Basics, again. If only theist children would bother to learn that much, if only their traditions would permit it. For some, they don't even get that much (e.g.: JWs). They will remain children, forever. Intellectually immature. :nono:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10055

Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#267  Postby Rumraket » Feb 23, 2012 3:54 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:

They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Oh for fuck's sake, this has to be one of the most retarded answers I've ever seen. Did you not learn anything in basic chemistry lessons? Such as what happens to the concentration of dissolved substances when you dilute them? Only covering the planet with an extra nine kilometres of water would dilute the oceans substantially. As a result, the salinity of the oceans would drop to the point where it impacted fatally upon the osmoregulatory systems of coral reef fishes and invertebrates, amongst others. On the other hand, being subject to a rapid net increase in salinity, because of the wholesale deluging of the freshwater bodies of the planet in rising seawater during the early stages of the fantasy "global flood", would exterminate a large number of freshwater aquatic organisms, including virtually all the Ostariophysan fishes, several species of which are current inmates of my aquaria.

In addition, not only would all the freshwater aquatic plants be destroyed by salinity changes, they would also be destroyed by finding themselves under an extra nine kilometres of water. Light only penetrates the oceans to a maximum depth of around 500 metres. The photic zone, which is the region within which photosynthesis can take place, extends to only 200 metres. This cutting off from sunlight would also kill the symbiotic zooxanthellae living within coral polyps, and as a consequence, all the world's reef building corals would have been exterminated. That all these taxa are still alive, tells us your fantasy flood never happened.


Image
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9681
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#268  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 4:12 pm

Here's a question for Lion, why did God make these animals in this way:

Screwed over by nature.
Last edited by Agrippina on Feb 23, 2012 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#269  Postby HughMcB » Feb 23, 2012 4:50 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?

Must. Contain. Laughter.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 18394
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#270  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 5:01 pm

Here's a thread that explains some of the learning method employed in this thread:

Fundamentalist argument school.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#271  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 5:30 pm

Calling Lion.............

Just thought you'd enjoy weighing in here:

The Vatican don't follow Jesus

You might like to explain to this poster how Christianity worships Jesus, it doesn't according to him.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#272  Postby Nebogipfel » Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Sigh. One last heave....

Lion IRC wrote:

The theistphysicist asks how did God do it. can I come up with an explanation which can be verified by experimental results?
The atheist physicist asks how is it possible without God.] can I come up with an explanation which can be verified by experimental results?


Fixed it for you. Occam's Razor at work. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is atheist, theist, or yellow with purple spots. The application of the scientific method is the same, and if you cannot make testable conditions from "goddidit", then "goddidit" is useless as an explanation.

I dont think of God as magic but even if you did think of God as a "magic wand" how can you then argue against Him?


Simple. By noting that "magic" explains absolutely nothing, whereas scientific hypotheses both supported by repeatable empirical evidence, have tremendous explanatory power.

If you admit even the slightest degree of metaphysics into the "Something out of Nothing" question about our origins, you are hard pressed to reject theism as a valid hypothesis.


This indicates your misunderstanding of the scientific method. Formulating a hypothesis is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end. Having formulated your hypothesis, you then have to make testable predicitions from it, and then see if those predictions are verified by experimental results.

You seem to think that if you come up with any explanation at all, no matter how bizarre, or far fetched, the simple fact of having come up with an explanation enables you to say, therefore, God. QED.

Sorry. It just doesn't work like that. Until you grasp this concept, your pontifications on scientific subjects will continue to be... not even wrong.
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 1794

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#273  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2012 6:22 pm

Agrippina wrote:Here's a question for Lion, why did God make these animals in this way:

Screwed over by nature.


I have some even better examples than that Aggie. :)

For example, quite a few Hemiptera have dispensed with the usual etiquette of mating. Instead of coupling genitalia, males in these species simply drive their copulatory organs through the body wall of the female. The familiar Beg Bug, Cimex lectularius, is one member of the Hemiptera that engages in this behaviour. Females have even evolved 'bulls eye' structures on the body to guide the male's aim. Another member of the Hemiptera, Xylochloris maculipennis, takes this a stage further. Not only do males drive their armour-piercing genitalia through the female's body wall to inseminate her, males will also invite other males to mate with them, in order to decommission the rivals' genitalia. Two other species of Hemiptera, namely Hesperocimex cochimiensis and Hesperocimex sonorensis exhibit an even more bizarre ferature. These two species are blood-sucking parasites, that live off the same bird species, and are thus direct competitors. If a male H. cochimiensis inseminates a female H. sonorensis, the female's body responds with a massive and lethal immune reaction, probably similar in form to a cytokine storm. Consequently, H. cochimiensis may use sex as a biological weapon, with which to kill off the rival species and destroy its mating chances.

It's not just Hemiptera either. Recently, a species of spider was discovered in Israel, that uses the same method, known as hypodermic insemination. Because of the trauma inflicted upon the female during mating, the species was named Harpactea sadistica.Other spiders prevent other males from inseminating a female, courtesy of bits of their copulatory organs breaking off and forming a plug in the female's genital opening.

Then you have Anglerfishes. These solve the problem of paternity in an interesting way. The male latches on to the female, and becomes a sort of semi-parasite. After he has attached to the female, his bloodstream connects with hers, and, as a result of the influence of female hormones, the male then starts to atrophy. First he loses his digestive system, then he start to lose his eyes, then he loses his brain, and ends his days as nothing more than a testicle sac, subject to female hormonal control. Trouble is, all that effort can end up being wasted, because in some species of Anglerfish, the female can support multiple male semi-parasites.

Returning to insects, there's an entire Order, known as the Strepsiptera, whose species have a singularly wacky life cycle. These insects are parasites, or, more correctly, the adult females are parasites. The males are free-flying, with a full complement of the usual insect anatomical parts, namely eyes, legs, wings, etc. The females, on the other hand, have abandoned all of this. Female Strepsiptera have no eyes, legs, wings, and even more weirdly, have no functioning external genitalia. Female Strepsiptera are, in effect, nothing more than a bag with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other. Males hunt down these unprepossessing partners to mate with them, which is achieved by the male rupturing the body cavity between the head and prothorax, which leads to a brood canal. In effect, female Strepsiptera have lost the usual female opening, and instead, offer up a sort of substitute vagina located where the back of the neck would be in humans.

As if this failed to be weird enough, the eggs hatch inside the female, and the first instar larvae spend their lives swimming around in her haemocoel (insects have an open circulatory system, with their organs bathed in a fluid called haemolymph, which performs the service of blood for these creatures). Once the larvae reach the second instar, they emerge from the female in possibly the strangest birth procedure known, again exiting her body through the substitute vagina, then have to find a host of their own in order to continue their lives. If they fail to do this before their limited energy reserves run out, they die. Successful larvae then spend time living as parasites inside their host, until it's time to pupate. Females emerge from the pupal case looking like the larvae, whilst males emerge with purportedly "normal" adult insect features. However, the male's lot is not a happy one. Not only does he have to find a mate, which means finding another host insect with a female in residence, but he has a limited amount of time to achieve this end. He has about five hours of energy reserves, and no functioning mouthparts with which to replenish them. Whether he's mated or not, at the end of five hours, he grinds to a halt and dies.

Meanwhile, how about this for a nice piece of hijacking? In Lake Tanganyika, there exist four species of Cichlid fish belonging to the Genus Ophthalmotilapia, of which O. ventralis is a popular aquarium fish. These fish are mouthbrooders, protecting their young inside the mouth of the female. However, the parents can sometimes find their reproductive efforts totally wasted. The reason? A catfish species, Synodontis multipunctata, performs a sort of reproductive burglary of the female's mouth. While the Cichlids are spawning, the catfish dash over the spawning site, and drop their own eggs in amongst those of the Cichlids, in an act of hit-and-run mating that takes place in less than a second, and which sees the catfish performing a sort of 'carpet bombing' of the Cichlids' spawning site with catfish eggs. The Cichlids pick up the catfish eggs with their own, and incubate them. The catfish eggs hatch first, developing faster than the Cichlids' own eggs, and when the catfish fry have hatched and are ready to eat, they dine on the Cichlids' eggs and fry whilst inside the female Cichlid's mouth. The female Cichlid continues caring for these freeloaders until they are too big to fit inside the female's mouth, whereupon they make their way into the world, protected by dorsal and pectoral fin spines that make them an unpalatable mouthful for any other fish foolish enough to try and eat them.

Oh, and how about the Green Spoonworm, Bonellia viridis, a species of marine flatworm? This one is particularly interesting. Larvae are planktonic, and sexually undifferentiated. The sexual fate of the adult worms, however, is dependent upon, of all things, a green pigment in existing adult females. This pigment, Bonellin, also serves as a defence against predation, and is a powerful paralysing agent that incapacitates would be predators very quickly. But as well as defending the adult females against predation, it determines the fate of future generations of Spoonworm larvae.

If a larva descends to the ocean floor, without encountering an existing female, that larva becomes a female. If, however, a larva descends to the ocean floor, and prior to reaching full adulthood, encounters an existing female, then the green Bonellin pigment has a masculinising effect upon the developing larva, switching its destiny to that of a male. The developing male larva is then either swallowed by the female or absorbed through the outer integument. Swallowed males are passed untouched by the digestive tract into the female's reproductive system, where they spend the rest of their lives as captive providers of sperm for the female. Males absorbed through the outer integument similarly wind up in the female genital sac. Males also lose the ability to feed independently, becoming in effect another body part of the female.

Of course, none of this is a problem for evolution, which simply allows whatever works to develop, without any regard for our sensibilities, or that of any other sentient entity. But any "creator" responsible for this lot must have a truly diseased imagination. :mrgreen:
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 17080
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#274  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 6:34 pm

That's fascinating Cali. As usual I have a question.
With all the wildlife around me I can see what would happen if one chain in the circle of life is removed, for instance if snakes were removed from this area, we would be overrun with rats, mice and those huge scary cane rats. So I know that there's a reason for the insects and animals here, not "designed" but because that's the way it works. Before I understood about evolution, I would be all weepy about NatGeo movies of lions chasing down buck and killing them, now I see it all as the "circle of life." I don't' eat meat through choice, but I understand that geckos eat moths and other insects, if we got rid of the geckos, we'd have mosquitoes in our house, they keep them down.

Which leads me to the question, where do the animals you mention above fit into the "circle?"
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#275  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2012 6:51 pm

Oh they're a diverse lot Aggie. Some are parasites (namely all the Strepsipterans, and several of the Hemipteran bugs), one or two are carnivores (Angler Fishes), the Green Spoonworm is a detritus feeder that recycles organic matter found in the sea bed, and Xylochloris maculipennis is herbivorous. In the case of the Tanganyikan fishes, I think the Ophthalmotilapia species are aufwuchs grazers, feeding on algal mats (which would account for the fact that they develop bloat in the aquarium if they're fed too much animal protein), whilst the catfish will eat just about anything remotely edible.

Oh, by the way, something else that lives in Lake Tanganyika is a fish rejoicing in the name of Malapterurus electricus, better known as the Electric Catfish. It's a seriously ugly fish as an adult, it looks as if someone's stuffed a sausage skin with shit and glued fins and a pair of beady little eyes to it. But then it doesn't have to be elegant to make a living. All it has to do is wait for something to come close enough, and then ZAP, it delivers a 350 volt electric shock. Sometimes it does this to stun things it will then swallow for food. At other times, it does this to make other fish spit out their food, which the Electric Catfish then scoffs after the other fish have beaten a hasty exit away from the electric shock. Sometimes, it just sits there, minding its own business, and finds itself being molested by otters and such like, and it delivers a shock in order to tell them to piss off. Otters usually work out pretty quickly that something packing a 350 volt punch isn't going to make a meal. :)

Strictly speaking, ecosystems aren't linear structures, they're interconnected webs. Each node in the web is an organism, and each node will have links to other nodes. Some of those links couple an organism to its food. Other links couple an organism to its predators. Yet other links couple an organism to parasites that make a living off it, and so on. When you set this lot down on paper, you end up with something that looks rather a lot like a drawing of a neural net. This page will explain this in more detail, along with several very nice illustrations.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 17080
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#276  Postby Agrippina » Feb 23, 2012 7:01 pm

Thanks for that Cali, I'm putting this page onto my Delicious stack so I can refer to it when necessary. :lol:
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#277  Postby Lion IRC » Feb 25, 2012 1:07 am

MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:

They are supposed to laugh at the one about Jonah


Not really.

They would be laughing because the change in salinity in the waters of the world would kill almost everything that lives in water.


Change?
Are you saying flood = more salt out of nowhere or flood = salt magically disappearing?


Neither.

Massive amount of rain (fresh water) mixed in with oceans (salt water) changes the concentration of salt in the water.

When that brackish water overflows the bounds of the ocean and floods into fresh-water sources such as lakes, it will add salt to the fresh water.

Since the gills of fish are function based on the salinity of their native environment, in waters with different salinity, they die. Both fresh-water and salt-water fish. All dead.


You have not explained what happened to the salt. What makes you think there was a change in concentration of salinity?
The biblical Flood simple moves existing water from 2/3rds coverage of the earth to 100%
No more or less overall quantity of salt. And where in the bible does it say the salinity of water was completely uniform around the earth and fixed for the duration of the Flood?
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#278  Postby hackenslash » Feb 25, 2012 1:23 am

Lion IRC wrote:You have not explained what happened to the salt. What makes you think there was a change in concentration of salinity?


Hello! Is this thing on?

For fuck's sake, Lion, it doesn't get any simpler than this, yet you still need an explanation!

Freshwater fish live in freshwater, and they need fresh water to survive. Saltwater fish live in saltwater, and they need saltwater to survive.

Are you with me so far?

If the entire globe is inundated, the saltwater levels would rise to the point that freshwater lakes would be inundated with saltwater, meaning that freshwater fish could not survive. The inundation itself, being freshwater (rain) would be such that the salinity levels in the oceans would be reduced to the point that huge numbers of species of saltwater fish could not survive.

Which bit of 'fish are still alive, therefore the flood didn't fucking happen' is escaping you here?

The biblical Flood simple moves existing water from 2/3rds coverage of the earth to 100%


Meaning that there is a global salinity level, killing ALL freshwater fish. Cali's aquarium is howling with laughter at the asininity of your cretinous drivel. I have met these fish, and I can assure you that they're still alive, rendering your guff absurd.

No more or less overall quantity of salt.


The overall quantity of salt is irrelevant. What is actually relevant is the salinity levels of particular environments, which would have been demolished had your fantasy global flood actually occurred. The existence of those piscine representatives demonstrates that, just for a change, you're talking absolute shit.

And where in the bible does it say the salinity of water was completely uniform around the earth and fixed for the duration of the Flood?


Who gives flying fuck what your preposterous book of fucknuttery has to say on this topic? That pile of utter fucking shit is the source of your scientific illiteracy. It is fucking wrong! Which bit of this FACT is failing to penetrate your cranium?

Your global flood is a fantasy. It never happened. Observational reality says it never happened, and no amount of illiterate, credulous wibbling is going to change that fact, because it IS A FACT.
Last edited by hackenslash on Feb 25, 2012 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dogma is the death of the intellect
There is no more thunderous prescient of doom than the flutter of tiny wings...
User avatar
hackenslash
Suspended User
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 18295
Age: 45
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#279  Postby LucidFlight » Feb 25, 2012 1:25 am

Lion IRC wrote:The biblical Flood simple moves existing water from 2/3rds coverage of the earth to 100%

Indeed, moving all the water on the planet around is a very simple thing to do. However, build an ark and put animals on it to save them? Yeah, better get a 500-year-old man to do that.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: QUANTUM CAT
Posts: 7881

Country: Various
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Something from Nothing - Dawkins & Krauss [Split from Science]

#280  Postby Agrippina » Feb 25, 2012 7:46 am

Of course, I suppose suggesting that Lion merely put a teaspoon of salt into a glass of water, stir in up, taste it and note the taste, then empty that into the kitchen sink, fill it to the top with water and taste that, then assess the difference in taste, would be a complete waste of time, because a simple experiment like that would demonstrate what you mean, and refute his silly flood story and make him question whether it actually happened. The cognitive dissonance could make his head explode. Then he would die, find out there is no God, and not be able to come back to tell us he was wrong. So I guess asking him to do it is too much of a scary idea.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33474
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest