Quote# 2842

Not necessarily, because freshwater is less dense and is KNOWN to be able to float on saltwater for a long time.

Socrates, Theology Web 7 Comments [4/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


11/15/2007 7:30:29 AM


So very wrong...

11/15/2007 7:49:50 AM

El Guapo

As much as I like poking a fundie in the eye (and most of what Socrates is saying is absurd), salt water IS more dense than freshwater, and oceanic freshwater tends to float on top of layers with greater salinity. So there is nothing wack or wrong with this statement (out of context as it is) by Socrates. Let's not be so knee-jerk with the eye-poking, huh? It makes skeptics look like cynics.

11/15/2007 8:16:34 AM


Assuming this has to do with the flood, this statement must have been used to "prove" that a global flood happened. However, this would mean that we'd find saltwater at the bottom of every body of water, as the massive rush of salt water would penetrate any freshwater bodies. So, in order to prove your statement, Socrates, go find saltwater in everything that should be freshwater.

12/28/2012 12:19:19 PM


Meh. Not enough context to be fundie.

12/28/2012 1:22:16 PM


In itself this statement has scientific merit, but I'll wager that it was meant as evidence that the flood happened. And there we descend from scientific feasibility to absolute bullshit.

12/29/2012 1:49:49 AM


So, there are no bodies of brackish water then? Good to know...

Maybe the freshwater can float on saltwater, if there is no movement in either, but as waves tend to stir the water around, I guess the "a long time" would be restricted to "until the next tide comes in/goes out".

12/29/2012 2:52:41 AM

1 | top: comments page