Talk:Ocean

The back to reality section refutes a specific point made by creationists, and is referenced in the 101 article. -- 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was also written very badly, from beginning to end. Want me to dig out the diff and copy it here for massaging?  00:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still a bunch of crap and will be here shortly. 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut from article:

"The oceans formed way back when. According to young earthers, the amount of salt in the ocean suggests they formed 62 million years ago. This apparently is 1/50 of what is suggested. Back to reality. The earth formed 4.5 million years ago. Back then it was probably molten, so dense objects (rocks) sunk and light objects (lighter rocks) floated. Anyway, water was vapor and in the atmosphere, and it settled on the newly made crust and formed big blue things. Back to the young earthers: Their point is refuted by the fact that a large amount of salt is desposited on the shore when seawater evaporates outside of the ocean (ie, a puddle). The first great lowering of salinity occured in the late Precambrian when huge amounts of salt was desposited in Neoproterozoic evaporite basins. Stuff like this can form evaporite. So much for the young earthers. "

First sentence thing isn't even literate. Young earthers claim the oceans are 62 million years old? Half of the next paragraph is already in the rest of the section. With this in there, it says "The oceans/sea formed" twice. I've got nothing against this "material" or argument being presented, but it's got to read like it would at least get a "B" as a late-high school paper. 00:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do. See here. Strange but true. -- 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why was there no reference for it here?


 * Here's an idea - try rewriting what you are trying to say, don't forget to footnote the source of the claim at CMI and the source (not WP!) of our answer to it here - starting after the text that is already there, as a new paragraph. Better yet, write it here so we can get it "ready for prime time" before pasting it in.  00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * EC'd (how come you no use "new section?) I'll read shortly, thanks. 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

New draft
"The oceans formed way back when. According to young earthers, the amount of salt in the ocean suggests they formed 62 million years ago. This apparently is 1/50 of what is suggested. They are wrong. Now, the young earthers are arguing for a starting point of zero salt. That isn't true. The oceans actually used to be saltier. It is less salty now due to the fact that a large amount of salt is desposited on the shore when seawater evaporates outside of the ocean (ie, a puddle). The first great lowering of salinity occured in the late Precambrian when huge amounts of salt was desposited in Neoproterozoic evaporite basins. Stuff like this can form evaporite. So much for the young earthers.

Now for a dose of reality. The earth formed 4.5 million billion (corrected by me Sep/18/09) years ago. Back then it was probably molten, so dense objects (rocks) sunk and light objects (lighter rocks) floated. Anyway, water was vapor and in the atmosphere, and it settled on the newly made crust and formed big blue things. "


 * Critique and suggested rewrite:


 * According to some young earthers, the amount of salt in the ocean suggests they formed 62 million years ago. - ok first sentence (link to source, not us, though!)

This apparently is 1/50 of what is suggested - this has no "meaning"

They are wrong. - pointless nyah-nyahing


 * The young earthers make their argument based on a starting point of zero salt, which isn't true - the oceans actually used to be saltier than they are today.


 * This is due to the fact that a large amount of salt is deposited on the shore when seawater evaporates outside of the ocean - the first great lowering of salinity occurred in the late Precambrian, when huge amounts of salt were deposited in Neoproterozoic evaporite basins.

Drop the nyah-nyah last sentence.

Try using the three bulleted sentences (as a paragraph though). The image, btw, adds nothing at all to this. 00:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the new salt mine image is better. I wanted to get one of Detroit salt mine but I couldn't find any copyright info. A salt mine hundreds of miles from the ocean is an awesome thang. Totnesmartin 12:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a great pic. 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)