SEAS and RIVERS zone separation. how true?

1. 60

   oryzanaposted 15 years ago

   The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition zone of separation.
   
   MODERN SCIENCE has discovered that in the places where two different SEAs meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.
   
   Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Eng.Mposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I read also that sea creatures in these barriers can't live anywhere else.they die due to environmental differences.
      
      but what has this to do with a religion forum?

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Errr ... how does the Gulf Stream fit into this little oversimplified version of hydrodynamic theory, oh Wise One?
      
      Could we perhaps have a reference to an actual scientific paper which purports to draw this very long bow, so that we can check for ourselves that the scientists did, in fact, draw this conclusion?
      
      As someone who grew up in a city which embraces a dozen or more estuaries, I can tell you now that your description of them in this quoted post is inaccurate. Locate a good dictionary and look up the word "brackish" ...
      
      Jenny

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Eng.Mposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         References:
         
         1-estuary
         
         2- Rocky Geyer, Where the Rivers Meet the Sea, Oceanus, December 16, 2004

         replyreport
         1. 60

            oryzanaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            there you go.. :-)

            replyreport
         2. 72

            Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            And here is a quote from this very article, which supports what I said and directly contradicts the OP's assertions:
            
            
            
            Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so river water tends to rise above seawater at the point where they meet, just as hot air rises above cold air.
            
            There is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't mean that the waters never mix!
            
            This article applies only to the situation where fresh water meets salt water, not the situation of "two oceans" as stated in the original post.
            
            As always, when there is an outlandish claim supposedly backed by "science", going back to the original scientific reference quickly restores rationality.
            
            Jenny
            
            P.S. The Gulf Stream spans half the globe, moving in one direction at the ocean surface, and in the opposite direction lower down, and crossing several ocean/sea/gulf boundaries in the process. If there was some kind of a "barrier" between oceans, the Gulf Stream could not exist - and therefore we would not be speaking English in America and Australia these days, nor would we be Hubbing in English.

            replyreport
2. 60

   oryzanaposted 15 years ago

   This actually shows how great GOD is and why human need to have faith in religion. Modern science can just explain things, but can it create such things??

   replyreport
3. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   Eng M. This is just the same argument you have been using for ages. And you have asked the same question I have been asking you all along lol
   
   What does this have to do with religion and god? lol
   
   Answer - Nothing

   replyreport
4. 59

   Thom Carnesposted 15 years ago

   One small religious implication ....
   
   If these invisible barriers between river and sea exist (which they evidently do), and it it would be fatal for certain marine creatures to cross them (which it evidently would), then what happened during the Flood?

   replyreport
5. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   Flood? What flood?
   
   It's obvious what this means anyway.
   
   The Spaghetti monster is telling us that some pasta should be cooked in salted water. And if you are an initiate of the mysteries of pastafarianism, there are instructions in their holey books as where exactly to find the sea water with the correct salinity.
   
   This is in fact yet another positive proof that all life was created for the purpose of consuming pasta in the correct manner.
   
   This is the true meaning of life.
   
   If you just open your eyes, with your heart filled with a love of pasta and a nice chilled glass of Chianti (the flesh and blood of the pastafarian lord who gave his only-begotten son, Colanderus to wash away the sins of the rice eaters), all will become clear.
   
   And you should be ridiculed if you do not believe this.
   
   I am not a pastafarian myself, but I can see the appeal.
   
   
   
   I mean which would any sensible person pick?
   
   Some non-existent person bleeding slowly to death on a cross?
   
   
   
   Or a nice bowl of pasta with a good glass of wine?
   
   
   
   Personally, I see it as more a marketing problem myself.

   replyreport
6. 72

   Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

   Mark,
   
   I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster would forgive the Christians the error of their ways, because by all accounts when Jesus turned water into wine, it was quite good quality wine, and His Noodliness accepts anyone who can produce the perfect accompaniment to His Communion Pastas as worthy of worship as a minor deity in their own right.
   
   It is the substitution of dry and unappetising wafers for the gustatorial joys of pastafarian Communion that puts modern-day Christians on the wrong end of the buffet.
   
   I'm sure we could get a syncretic practice developed, with Communion wine and a slightly more appetising pasta-based representation of the Divine flesh.
   
   Jenny

   replyreport