Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- no
- No
- PooMan
- asdfjkl;
- Schreiber
- zaungast
- MeM
- Mem
- not putting in a name
- even girl
- webchick
- WC
- J
- master of cerimonies
- Damtiri
- tupac
- cocacola
- Greg
- Alex
- e
- ads
- irulan
- lol
- Fabio
- just a guy
- Chris
- MP
- Frank
- alan
- Sarah
- Anonymous
- turvid
- The Last American
- breen
- anonymono
- MS
- germy
- Peter
- chris
- so serious, why?
- DB
- turvid
- spawned
- alex
- AC
- idiot
- Iron Lungfish
- MS20
- anonymous
- Berkz
- omg
- Anonymous
- Me
- GK
- Josh
- ku ma mo to
- Jimmy_PoP
- Steve
- namnam
- Digital
- Eddie
- HeWon-GetOverIt
- SEXY!!!...
- Dangomushi
- Ich
- Patrick
- Brian
- Drew
- Tetsuo
- .
- Sommi
- Myo
- D
- Mark
- Just A Guy
- Vegetable
- exPlenty
- Kelly_Rippa
- no
- Natzi
- jazzy
- Michael
- Fatty McFat
- Wouldn't you like to know
- FANPiRExx0
- I clocked the game
- Testname
- Neighbor
- non
- strekoza
- bla bla
- Miles Edgeworth
- William G
- Craig!
- luke
- Emil
- Anthony
- cj
- x
- Yacoub
- Observer
- cm
- no
- jan
- Janizary
- ha
- derf
- grinch
- Dave Ariston
- Zechariah
- keimgreek
- poopoo
- Jakub81
- Robert
- Exospaca
- OneYearGoal.com
- me
- Jotun
- n00b
- B
- antimonio
- FUCK U
- Jay
- charlie
- Chris' armor
- OneYearGoal.com
- michael
- max wood
- max
- max wood
- max
- HC
- notrdm
- Levi
- lolwut
- Anon
- jayh
- Coffeepastor
- Bob
- Nono
- I feel like pukeing now
- Flemming
- nope
no
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 hours ago
in Tie inspection on Geek Hero Comic
the comic is missing.
1 reply
Salvatore Iovene
Thanks. Fixed.
1 month ago
in Missing Link Found - Score: Evolution 1,831,669, Creationists still 0 on The Inquisitr
Sorry, Jackson, but everything you just said about ocean salinity is complete fallacy. For a start it is extremely unlikely that rivers can account for all of the salts present in the oceans. The influence of volcanism is required to get the right amount of chlorine.
Secondly you assume to removal mechanism for ocean salts which is incorrect. Biogeochemical processes and hydrothermal venting change the calculations significantly.
This is not a static system. It should not be treated as just running a salty tap into a bath. In fact, for a salt to accumulate in the deep ocean it needs to have a residence time of longer than 40,000 years. Sodium chloride does have a longer residence time than this, so the idea of dating at 10,000 years is well off.
But as with your other posts, maybe you'd just rather not debate this here?
Secondly you assume to removal mechanism for ocean salts which is incorrect. Biogeochemical processes and hydrothermal venting change the calculations significantly.
This is not a static system. It should not be treated as just running a salty tap into a bath. In fact, for a salt to accumulate in the deep ocean it needs to have a residence time of longer than 40,000 years. Sodium chloride does have a longer residence time than this, so the idea of dating at 10,000 years is well off.
But as with your other posts, maybe you'd just rather not debate this here?
1 reply
Jackson
No, it's not. The rest of your post assumed that salt was being added but was being removed in other ways, you contradicted yourself.
OK, I had to go back and review this, and I was wrong it does not put a limit of 10,000 years on the age of the earth. Sorry for the misinformation, I got it confused with the earth magnetic field which does put the limit at 10 thousand years.
While there are processes that remove salts from the ocean they are being added faster than they are being removed. Also there is evidence that salts were being added to the ocean at a faster rate then now. The correct date (Assuming that the oceans were fresh water to begin with) is 62 million years (62,000,000). But this is a far cry from the estimated 12 billion (12,000,000,000) years that some evolutionists date the earth to. In fact 62 million is 1/193 of 12 billion. (actually it's 1/193.5483871 if you care:)
Yes, this isn't the place to debate this. If you wasn’t to we ( and anyone else who wants to chime in) can continue this debate at the Freedom Fighters Forum (www.freedom836.com).
I can also get in to how the earth’s magnetic field limits the age of the earth to 10,000 years, a much more involved explanation would be required.
Jackson
OK, I had to go back and review this, and I was wrong it does not put a limit of 10,000 years on the age of the earth. Sorry for the misinformation, I got it confused with the earth magnetic field which does put the limit at 10 thousand years.
While there are processes that remove salts from the ocean they are being added faster than they are being removed. Also there is evidence that salts were being added to the ocean at a faster rate then now. The correct date (Assuming that the oceans were fresh water to begin with) is 62 million years (62,000,000). But this is a far cry from the estimated 12 billion (12,000,000,000) years that some evolutionists date the earth to. In fact 62 million is 1/193 of 12 billion. (actually it's 1/193.5483871 if you care:)
Yes, this isn't the place to debate this. If you wasn’t to we ( and anyone else who wants to chime in) can continue this debate at the Freedom Fighters Forum (www.freedom836.com).
I can also get in to how the earth’s magnetic field limits the age of the earth to 10,000 years, a much more involved explanation would be required.
Jackson
1 month ago
in Missing Link Found - Score: Evolution 1,831,669, Creationists still 0 on The Inquisitr
Fair point, I have never really thought about the accuracy of translation. I would have though that we would have fallen foul of the vagaries of language evolution and political whim (King James version) a few times and lost/gained a few things. Plus there are different versions depending on denomination etc. Without the original copy I suppose it is hard to say, but I agree that more effort has been put into its translation than anything else.
1 reply
added thoughts
One more side note, the earliest fragment of a manuscript of the New Testament that we have in our possession dates back to within 30 years after it was originally written. It is of John's Gospel. No other document of antiquity even comes close to this. With all of the fragments pieced together, the accuracy of the New Testament is 99% reliable with that 1% being of discrepancies that have no bearing on the literal meaning of the text.
