The atheist said if the ocean was fine tuned for life, then why can’t most creatures drink saltwater, considering it covers 67% of the earths surface? Saltwater, found in oceans and seas, is crucial for several reasons.
- Regulates Climate: It plays a key role in regulating Earth’s climate through ocean currents, which distribute heat and influence weather patterns.
- Biodiversity: Saltwater ecosystems support diverse marine life, from microorganisms to large marine mammals, contributing to global biodiversity.
- Oxygen Production: Marine algae in saltwater generate a substantial portion of the planet’s oxygen through photosynthesis.
- Economic Value: Saltwater supports industries such as fishing, shipping, and tourism, driving economies in coastal regions.
- Balances Ecosystems: It interacts with freshwater in estuaries, serving as critical nurseries for marine species.
In summary, saltwater is essential for maintaining Earth’s climate, supporting diverse ecosystems, and sustaining economies and livelihoods worldwide. All of this point to a finely tuned ocean.
Conform to Jesus 
unsurprisingly, no fine tuning, but we’ve evolved to fit what is here. Same goes with animals.
With this claim, you’ve shown that the bible flood to be entirely ridiculous since if salt water is tath important, adding a couple of *miles* of fresh water to the seas would have killed all of the sea life.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Read the Bible. Where did the waters come from? I will give you a clue from this description:
The East Pacific Rise springs are shown in Science News, January 12, 1980. This article is titled, “Smokers, Red Worms, and Deep Sea Plumbing” and is followed by the caption; “Sea floor oases of mineral-rich springs and amazing creatures fulfill oceanographers’ dreams.” The discovery of these deep ocean springs is said to be the “most significant oceanographic find since the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve read the bible a couple of times, Chad, and it is full of ignorance and lies. It’s no surprise that you had to run to lying creationists for this article.
Yep, there are various springs in the oceans, still no evidence the ridiculous flood happenened. Unsurprisingly, if there were massive upheavals from “the fountains of the deep”, we would see the debris. Curious how there is nothing to support your nonsense, as usual. Humans have seen springs fill up basins for a long time, nothing magically known here at all.
there is estimated to be over 300,000,000 cubic miles of water in earth’s oceans. the ICR article has this claim “Dr. John M. Edmond of M.I.T. suggests that water circulation through oceanic springs is a major geologic process; he estimates that 40 cubic miles of water flow out of earth’s oceanic springs each year” Flows “through”, not that the water keeps coming out with new supplies. Creationists are incompetent liars.
LikeLike
You bring up some good points. I don’t have enough extensive knowledge in this area to respond adequately. It does intrigue me to investigate further on this topic. Regardless of our differences, I respect you as a person. Thanks.
LikeLike
that’s what happens ot creationists and their nonsense, they start from ignorance and then try to lie about scientists. You are like many creationists, making claims about things you have not taken the time to learn about, attacking strawmen.
LikeLike
No, I am honest about my expertise. If I don’t have a PhD in a certain field, then I am not going to make a claim that I don’t have extensive knowledge in. That’s all.
LikeLike
And yet, you just did. 🙄
LikeLiked by 2 people
amazing how these christians do exactly what they claim not to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You missed the point entirely. Most of this planet is not fit for us to survive in. No biological system even appears fine tuned. Unless, you want to admit the fine tuner was blind and didn’t know what it was doing. Also the fine tuned argument extends to the cosmos. So how is it fine tuned? What empirical evidence are you sitting on that no one has seen? It’s almost as if the ones who ask how and not why are the ones with answers. Then some spiritual woo woo moron has to plant their god where they stopped understanding. Panpsychism is the same. Someone thinks they know something then that means they know everything then also god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your skepticism, and it’s important to acknowledge that the arguments for the existence of God are indeed a matter of philosophical and theological debate. When it comes to the concept of fine-tuning in the universe, it’s not about implying that a creator was blind or unknowing; rather, it suggests a purposeful and intentional design that allowed the universe to support life. The cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments are philosophical frameworks that many theists find persuasive, based on their understanding of order, complexity, and moral values in the world. Personal religious experiences, while subjective, are powerful for those who have them, offering a deeply personal basis for belief. Historical accounts and fulfilled prophecies are subjects of historical analysis and debate, which sometimes lend credibility to religious narratives. Ultimately, belief in God is multifaceted and often rooted in a combination of rational arguments, personal experiences, and faith, but it’s important to approach these discussions with respect for different viewpoints.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All of those arguments are flawed word salad. They are convincing because they skip the main objective atheist have. You probably won’t understand that so. I’ll grant you a god is possible. What evidence supports your claim?
LikeLike
What do you mean? God is self-evident. Empirical verification is unnecessary. It’s like saying to you, “I am a thinking human being, but prove to me I am a thinking human being.” Well of course, you are thinking right now, you are communicating with another human in this massive universe on a pale blue dot within the Milky Way galaxy. You are reading words with syntax on this blog, which tells your brain there is a concept, even if that concept is a deeply flawed word salad. Do I really need to prove that your consciousness is interacting with this world?
Somehow, your input of data is outputting a reaction and emotional response. Well, with God, it’s the same. You know this entity exists and so do I, but within skepticism, we create these labyrinths of logic to make us “think” we really don’t believe in God. Then we get on the defense to say, “show me God exists,” in order to placate our desires not to believe that God really does exist. And I have interacted with enough atheists to know this is the case, because each time I speak with one, they say words and phrases in certain ways. This just reaffirms the circular reasoning they have of doubt in the existence of a deity that they know exists.
Common sense realism and Thomas Reid is what I am getting at. Read Alvin Plantinga and some other philosophers that teach on this idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No god is no self evident. Otherwise apologetics wouldn’t rely on weak word salad arguments to sell their books to the ignorant faithless masses.
I granted you that a god is possible and asked for your evidence of fine tuning and you failed. You didn’t even argue for it. You completely missed an opportunity to show something and went back to panpsychism and called it god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I literally wrote an entire blog on that. Read it and then we can talk through it. Thanks my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person