Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:37:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071537080001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f44fq9$iso$02$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: .... >> >> Proof of this? It is a medical phenomenon. Can you prove it? >> >> To show that you are not making this up, prove it. This would be >> remarkable. There are spontaneous remissions from tumors, you know. All >> of them are documented. >> >> So, where can we find the documents for these cases? >> >> >> Tokay > >I am NOT going to give you or anyone else the name of that wonderful lady. >Try conducting a google search for "documented cases of healings" > Where is the evidence that God had anything to do with it? There isn't. You know there isn't. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 <snip for brevity> ">> I do know what is in several other books I read. And if I look through >> this heap of books behind me (at the moment quite literally a heap) I >> might even find one I am referring to. >> >> I don't point to books and say "Read this, the evidence is there. I >> don't know what is in it, but the evidence is there". >> >> And that is EXACTLY what you were doing. >> >> >> Tokay > > That is partly true but you left out that I read Dr. Gish's fossil book. > > I also read most of a book entitled, "The Bible Has All the Answers" by > Dr. Henry Morris --the founder of ICR. I still have that book. > > Jason Of course it does. Unfortunately many of them are the wrong answers. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406072357200001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >> > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > >It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >several other Christians and myself. > Is Gish a she? Gish is a liar. I don't encourage those who don't believe Christian doctrine to ridicule it, whether they are Moslems or Hindus or atheist, but Gish deserves ridicule, not because he is a Christian, but because he relies on the ignorance of other Christians to sell them lies. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071511330001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <k4ugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? How >> >> long ago? >> >> IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years >> >> ago. But that is another matter. >> > >> > Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years >> > ago >> > that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it >> > took >> > place. >> >> A flood is a massively destructive event, one which leaves signs that it >> occurred. There is plenty of evidence of local flooding in many areas; >> there is, as yet, not a single shred of evidence that a global flood took >> place at any point in history. >> >> However... >> >> Let's assume for the nonce that it did happen. What does this tell us? >> >> We might start by noting that there is simply not enough water on earth >> for this to happen. This means water must either have magically appeared >> for the event to have occurred, or there must have been enough water >> beforehand and it magically disappeared. >> >> Magically disappeared? Yes. It requires that whatever mechanism >> disposed >> of such an enormous amount of water, in a comparatively small time frame, >> stopped before all the water vanished. Since neither the mechanism to >> account for that much water vanishing nor the mechanism for stopping >> the >> process have been posited, let alone evidenced, it is therefore summed up >> simply as "magic". >> >> So, we're already on poor footing, as there isn't enough water to do the >> deed. But let us continue. I'm going to post here some text by someone >> responding to exactly this nonsense from another person ignorant of basic >> mechanics. >> >> <import> >> >> First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, >> (see >> that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount >> Everest >> is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the >> other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of >> water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then >> we >> subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know >> this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect >> sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts >> involved. >> >> So, here are the calculations: >> >> First, Everest >> >> V= 4/3 pi r cubed >> = 4/3 pi 6387.248 km cubed >> = 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3) >> >> Now, the Earth at sea level >> >> V = 4/3 pi r cubed >> = 4/3 pi 6378.4 km cubed >> = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3) >> >> The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to >> just cover the Earth: >> >> 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into >> a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres >> >> This is one helluva lot of water. >> >> For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't >> forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice >> present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water >> necessary. >> >> Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight >> do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic >> centimetre (by definition)...so, >> >> 4.252x1009 km3 of water, >> X 106 (= cubic meters), >> X 106 (= cubic centimetres), >> X 1 g/cm3 (= grams), >> X 10-3 (= kilograms), >> (turn the crank) >> equals 4.525E+21 kg. >> >> Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many >> times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets >> covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake >> of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the >> latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average >> thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas >> [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating >> edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice. >> >> Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of >> water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all >> that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% >> [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) >> percent of the water needed for the flood. >> >> Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before >> present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood >> event. >> >> Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding >> the >> supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of >> the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called >> glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like >> northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some >> 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's >> hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this >> glacioeustacy). >> >> Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated >> terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated >> during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged >> interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by >> geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche >> moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial >> drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to >> say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth >> (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the >> glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size >> of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable >> and measurable effects on the lands. >> >> Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly >> much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has >> exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence. >> >> Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...? >> >> Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. >> Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an >> additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the >> point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's >> gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the >> atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our >> atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood >> waters; and it boils off into space. >> >> Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In >> fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) >> which >> can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and >> relative >> gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far >> more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major >> loss >> of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, >> nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the >> flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses >> (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such >> global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores. >> >> Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other >> claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense. >> >> Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth >> of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or >> 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' >> (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to >> accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted >> additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The >> Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above >> the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 >> x >> 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., >> clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than >> standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat >> released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to >> raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C >> (6,460 F). >> >> Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the >> water >> needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe >> (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What >> is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little >> property called gravity that would cause it to fall. >> >> Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we >> have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a >> mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the >> Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which >> is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is >> converted >> to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is >> immense: >> >> Potential energy: E=M g H, where >> M = mass of water, >> g = gravitational constant and, >> H = height of water above surface. >> >> Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 >> days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x >> 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. >> Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is >> 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to >> radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times >> number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4 3.14159 >> ((6386)2 86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s. >> >> Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 >> joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- >> Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature: >> >> E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) >> >> E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280. >> >> Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K. >> >> The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 >> F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that >> anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the >> water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and >> in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep. >> >> Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid. >> >> It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only >> fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise. >> >> </import> >> >> >> I'm sure you'll find some "reason" to dodge this, but I'm equally certain >> you will not actually attempt to understand, let alone deal with the >> implications of, the science involved. That would require a degree of >> integrity on your part which you have never given an indication you're >> even capable of. > > I will not try to respond to your post. Dr. Moris (founder of ICR) had a > theory related to the water. You can read his about his theory in this > book: > "The Bible Has The Answers" by Dr. Henry M. Morris. I won't try to > summarize his theory since I would probably end up leaving out important > details. There are no important details by Morris, when referring to that impossibility. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071605360001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f44l9r$7tv$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <k4ugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>>> You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? How >> >>>> long ago? >> >>>> IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion >> >>>> years >> >>>> ago. But that is another matter. >> >>> Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years >> >>> ago >> >>> that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it >> >>> took >> >>> place. >> >> A flood is a massively destructive event, one which leaves signs that >> >> it >> >> occurred. There is plenty of evidence of local flooding in many >> >> areas; >> >> there is, as yet, not a single shred of evidence that a global flood >> >> took >> >> place at any point in history. >> >> >> >> However... >> >> >> >> Let's assume for the nonce that it did happen. What does this tell >> >> us? >> >> >> >> We might start by noting that there is simply not enough water on >> >> earth >> >> for this to happen. This means water must either have magically >> >> appeared >> >> for the event to have occurred, or there must have been enough water >> >> beforehand and it magically disappeared. >> >> >> >> Magically disappeared? Yes. It requires that whatever mechanism >> >> disposed >> >> of such an enormous amount of water, in a comparatively small time >> >> frame, >> >> stopped before all the water vanished. Since neither the mechanism to >> >> account for that much water vanishing nor the mechanism for stopping >> >> the >> >> process have been posited, let alone evidenced, it is therefore summed >> >> up >> >> simply as "magic". >> >> >> >> So, we're already on poor footing, as there isn't enough water to do >> >> the >> >> deed. But let us continue. I'm going to post here some text by >> >> someone >> >> responding to exactly this nonsense from another person ignorant of >> >> basic >> >> mechanics. >> >> >> >> <import> >> >> >> >> First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, >> >> (see >> >> that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount >> >> Everest >> >> is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the >> >> other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume >> >> of >> >> water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; >> >> then we >> >> subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I >> >> know >> >> this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect >> >> sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts >> >> involved. >> >> >> >> So, here are the calculations: >> >> >> >> First, Everest >> >> >> >> V= 4/3 pi r cubed >> >> = 4/3 pi 6387.248 km cubed >> >> = 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3) >> >> >> >> Now, the Earth at sea level >> >> >> >> V = 4/3 pi r cubed >> >> = 4/3 pi 6378.4 km cubed >> >> = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3) >> >> >> >> The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed >> >> to >> >> just cover the Earth: >> >> >> >> 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put >> >> into >> >> a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres >> >> >> >> This is one helluva lot of water. >> >> >> >> For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please >> >> don't >> >> forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of >> >> ice >> >> present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of >> >> water >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much >> >> weight >> >> do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic >> >> centimetre (by definition)...so, >> >> >> >> 4.252x1009 km3 of water, >> >> X 106 (= cubic meters), >> >> X 106 (= cubic centimetres), >> >> X 1 g/cm3 (= grams), >> >> X 10-3 (= kilograms), >> >> (turn the crank) >> >> equals 4.525E+21 kg. >> >> >> >> Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many >> >> times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets >> >> covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the >> >> sake >> >> of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance >> >> (the >> >> latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an >> >> average >> >> thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some >> >> areas >> >> [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the >> >> ablating >> >> edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of >> >> ice. >> >> >> >> Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 >> >> of >> >> water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all >> >> that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% >> >> [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two >> >> thousandths) >> >> percent of the water needed for the flood. >> >> >> >> Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years >> >> before >> >> present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood >> >> event. >> >> >> >> Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding >> >> the >> >> supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust >> >> of >> >> the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising >> >> (called >> >> glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like >> >> northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered >> >> some >> >> 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's >> >> hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call >> >> this >> >> glacioeustacy). >> >> >> >> Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated >> >> terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated >> >> during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged >> >> interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by >> >> geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, >> >> rouche >> >> moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged >> >> fluvial >> >> drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless >> >> to >> >> say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on >> >> Earth >> >> (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the >> >> glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the >> >> size >> >> of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY >> >> recognisable >> >> and measurable effects on the lands. >> >> >> >> Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, >> >> supposedly >> >> much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; >> >> has >> >> exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence. >> >> >> >> Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...? >> >> >> >> Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. >> >> Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an >> >> additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the >> >> point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's >> >> gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the >> >> atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our >> >> atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood >> >> waters; and it boils off into space. >> >> >> >> Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In >> >> fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) >> >> which >> >> can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and >> >> relative >> >> gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, >> >> far >> >> more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major >> >> loss >> >> of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, >> >> nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the >> >> flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier >> >> gasses >> >> (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from >> >> such >> >> global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores. >> >> >> >> Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the >> >> other >> >> claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense. >> >> >> >> Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite >> >> depth >> >> of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or >> >> 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' >> >> (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to >> >> accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted >> >> additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. >> >> The >> >> Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and >> >> above >> >> the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional >> >> 4.525 x >> >> 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., >> >> clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater >> >> than >> >> standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat >> >> released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough >> >> to >> >> raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 >> >> C >> >> (6,460 F). >> >> >> >> Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the >> >> water >> >> needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the >> >> globe >> >> (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. >> >> What >> >> is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a >> >> little >> >> property called gravity that would cause it to fall. >> >> >> >> Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, >> >> we >> >> have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with >> >> a >> >> mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about >> >> the >> >> Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, >> >> which >> >> is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is >> >> converted >> >> to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is >> >> immense: >> >> >> >> Potential energy: E=M g H, where >> >> M = mass of water, >> >> g = gravitational constant and, >> >> H = height of water above surface. >> >> >> >> Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting >> >> 40 >> >> days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 >> >> x >> >> 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. >> >> Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is >> >> 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to >> >> radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth >> >> times >> >> number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4 3.14159 >> >> ((6386)2 86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s. >> >> >> >> Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 >> >> joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- >> >> Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature: >> >> >> >> E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) >> >> >> >> E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280. >> >> >> >> Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K. >> >> >> >> The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's >> >> 2,780.33 >> >> F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that >> >> anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, >> >> the >> >> water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; >> >> and >> >> in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep. >> >> >> >> Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid. >> >> >> >> It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. >> >> Only >> >> fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise. >> >> >> >> </import> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure you'll find some "reason" to dodge this, but I'm equally >> >> certain >> >> you will not actually attempt to understand, let alone deal with the >> >> implications of, the science involved. That would require a degree of >> >> integrity on your part which you have never given an indication you're >> >> even capable of. >> > >> > I will not try to respond to your post. Dr. Moris (founder of ICR) had >> > a >> > theory related to the water. You can read his about his theory in this >> > book: >> > "The Bible Has The Answers" by Dr. Henry M. Morris. I won't try to >> > summarize his theory since I would probably end up leaving out >> > important >> > details. >> > >> > >> >> Oh bugger, what an excuse. >> >> So you don't know it? Have you read the book this time? Do you still >> have it? >> >> I guess no.... on both counts. >> >> >> Tokay > > I have a copy of the book and have read most of it. I will not try to > explain his interesting theory. He doesn't have a theory, Jason, he only has a wild guess. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <6vlb63lrt8hi6n6t73ho57otd2mpice8nf@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snip > >> >> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so > >> >> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? > >> >> > > >> >> > Columbia > >> >> > >> >> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a > >> >> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. > >> >> > >> >> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? > >> > > >> >Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit > >> >the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. > >> > > >> What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the > >> history of witchcraft? > > > >My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that > >covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates > >against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That > >college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons > >was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these > >same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? > > But if your example is Columbia teaching the history of witchcraft, > you should know that Union Theological Seminary is affiliated with > Columbia. And Universities are quite free to choose what deserves > tenure and what doesn't. > > >I would like your comments about this article: > > > > > >The Light-Distance Problem > >by David F. Coppedge > > > >Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how > >light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. > >People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to > >discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and > >seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously > >requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a > >result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the > >rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. > > > >For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have > >written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for > >dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of > >the Bible. > > > >A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical > >creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not > >getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have > >established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find > >it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of > >the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance > >problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. > > > >According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions > >from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny > >region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles > >going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each > >part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the > >problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all > >parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the > >cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If > >no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of > >temperature? > > > >The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular > >cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in > >1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued > >by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), > >the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with > >a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the > >expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise > >balance between the acceleration rate and density. > > > >Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of > >problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should > >begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is > >limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to > >be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by > >numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. > > > > David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion > >Laboratory. > >(The views expressed are his own.) > >jason > > > It basically says "Well, you don't have an answer for the > nonhomogeneity of the universe, so we are even." > > Then it lies. "Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem > should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. " > But the light-distance problem, of how light could get to us from many > millions of light years away in only 10,000 years, is NOT a problem > for science because the science indicates that the universe IS > billions of light years old. Jim, Thanks for your post. I typed "Big Bang Problems" and was shocked at the number of sites related to that subject. I found this information at one of sites--I welcome your comments: Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory: 1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. 4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. 5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars. 10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071539450001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <iEi9i.18815$px2.1848@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0506071251550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1181031352.198793.304350@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Martin >> >> > >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) >> > come to be? >> >> > >> >> > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is >> >> > > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to zero. >> >> > > It >> >> > > is possible to get something from nothing. >> >> >> >> > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the >> >> > natural laws >> >> >> >> Trust me. There's no conflict. >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be >> > changed. You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing. >> > There is a conflict. >> >> No conflict at all, Jason. You assume that matter that is created is >> created. It isn't, it only changed forms. At the end of this universe the >> matter will return to energy. I read a couple of years ago that one >> hypothesis that was being studied was that the energy that was converted >> to >> matter was borrowed from gravity and that was one reason why gravity was >> the >> weakest of the four fundamental forces. > > Was I mistaken--is there a natural law or it may be called a law of > thermodynamics--that states > matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be changed? First law of thermo. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071307060001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> snip >> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten >> >> > so >> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >> >> >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? >> > >> > Columbia >> >> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a >> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. >> >> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? > > Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit > the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. It is probably a historical look at why the Christians burned tens of thousands of witches at the stake. Of course in today's world we know there are no witches, demons, goblins or gods. We've come a long way from our shameful superstitious past and once we overcome the idiocy that conservative Christians are attempting to foster on the public we can truly reap the rewards and benefits of science to mankind. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to the Big > Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that? It is more correct to say that we cannot measure time before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is what caused our spacetime to exist. That spacetime is what we measure space - and time - in; it provides the events, the observable things, the change in entropy, which allows us to determine that time actually passes. "Prior" to this - if such a phrase even makes sense - we have no way to measure events, as we are inside a "bubble" of spacetime and our measurements are solely able to meaningfully discuss the events we can observe - namely, events which, like us, are inside that "bubble". To speak of "before" is to imply something which existed or occurred before this bubble ever existed, but we cannot really speak meaningfully of it, as there is no way for us to observe it - it is _outside_ the bubble, we are _inside_. Thus to even say "time did (or didn't) exist prior to the Big Bang" is to assume that the very concept "before the big bang" is itself meaningful, but that implies duration - time - and that, in turn, implies something we can in some way measure, some sequence of events; if, however, we are limited to seeing events inside the bubble, we cannot measure such events outside, so we cannot say that the concept of time itself had any meaning "before", or that "before" has any meaning. All we can do is examine what happened after - and even there, we can only examine so far, as "prior" to that (again, if the concept of "prior" or time has any meaning at all in such cases) it is suggested that the expansion was simply too hot to sustain things in a manner which allow for observation. In essence, at some point, according to the hypothesis and the evidence we do have, there was a singularity, a point at which the laws of physics as we know them break down. If they do, in fact, break down then we cannot rely on them to probe further. Was there time "prior to the big bang"? Wrong question. The proper question is what does "prior to the big bang" mean, unless you can establish that time actually did exist, and in a manner which we would be able to detect? -- I believe that all bosses and employers should be able to fire a homosexual for being gay. However, I also believe they should be able to fire people for the color of their skin. - Ken Young Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:45:57 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >> >> > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> >> >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? >> > >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >> > several other Christians and myself. >> >> Gish is not a "she", he's a "he". Again, on what basis do you find Gish >> worthy of respect? Is it his lies, his deceptions or his fundamental >> dishonesty you find so worthy of respect? > > I respect him for his accomplishments. That would be his collected lies, his foundation of dishonesty, or his outright frauds? The curious wish to know. -- Bow down and worship the idol rather than learn. - Matt Giwer Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:11:33 -0700, Jason wrote: > I will not try to respond to your post. Of course not. That would require a degree of integrity you repeatedly demonstrate you don't have - and it's exactly as I predicted. Amazing how science always sends them running and hiding, until they poke their little heads out again to bleat some other nonsense which they can't support. -- Try asking yourself: Why? Do it for the first time in your life. Question what you were taught by rote to believe and weigh that against the facts that have been shown to you. Show everyone that you are not a robot and have the capability to look at the facts and make a sound judgement based on those same facts. - Dan Ceppa Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:37:08 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > <import> > > First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see > that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest > is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the > other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of > water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we > subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know > this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect > sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts > involved. > > So, here are the calculations: > > First, Everest > > V= 4/3 pi r cubed > = 4/3 pi 6387.248 km cubed > = 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3) > > Now, the Earth at sea level > > V = 4/3 pi r cubed > = 4/3 pi 6378.4 km cubed > = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3) > > The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to > just cover the Earth: > > 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into > a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres > > This is one helluva lot of water. > > For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't > forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice > present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water > necessary. > > Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight > do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic > centimetre (by definition)...so, > > 4.252x1009 km3 of water, > X 106 (= cubic meters), > X 106 (= cubic centimetres), > X 1 g/cm3 (= grams), > X 10-3 (= kilograms), > (turn the crank) > equals 4.525E+21 kg. > > Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many > times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets > covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake > of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the > latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average > thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas > [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating > edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice. > > Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of > water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all > that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% > [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) > percent of the water needed for the flood. > > Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before > present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood > event. > > Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the > supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of > the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called > glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like > northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some > 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's > hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this > glacioeustacy). > > Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated > terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated > during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged > interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by > geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche > moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial > drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to > say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth > (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the > glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size > of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable > and measurable effects on the lands. > > Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly > much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has > exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence. > > Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...? > > Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. > Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an > additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the > point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's > gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the > atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our > atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood > waters; and it boils off into space. > > Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In > fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which > can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative > gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far > more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss > of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, > nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the > flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses > (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such > global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores. > > Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other > claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense. > > Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth > of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or > 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' > (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to > accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted > additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The > Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above > the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x > 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., > clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than > standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat > released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to > raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C > (6,460 F). > > Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water > needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe > (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What > is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little > property called gravity that would cause it to fall. > > Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we > have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a > mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the > Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which > is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted > to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is > immense: > > Potential energy: E=M g H, where > M = mass of water, > g = gravitational constant and, > H = height of water above surface. > > Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 > days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x > 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. > Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is > 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to > radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times > number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4 3.14159 > ((6386)2 86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s. > > Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 > joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- > Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature: > > E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) > > E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280. > > Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K. > > The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 > F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that > anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the > water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and > in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep. > > Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid. > > It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only > fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise. > > </import> Apologies, the attribution didn't make the pasting. The above was provided by one Dr. Marty Leipzig. Smart man, funny man, a man of many talents, tormenting funnymentalists being but one. -- Noah’s Flood--- it just doesn’t wash . . . Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:39:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > Was I mistaken--is there a natural law or it may be called a law of > thermodynamics--that states > matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be changed? Energy is neither created nor destroyed. -- Humanism is a very evangelical religion after the control of the world. • Mark Fox Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> > >Jim, >Thanks for your post. I typed "Big Bang Problems" and was shocked at the >number of sites related to that subject. I found this information at one >of sites--I welcome your comments: > > >Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang > >Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research > >A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle >for viability as a theory: > > 1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. > > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting >temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a >fireball. > > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many >adjustable parameters to make them work. > > 4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed >"walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. > > 5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just >the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all >redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. > > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. > > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite >universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. > > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be >the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. > > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient >evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher >redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars. > > 10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the >beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to >the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any >larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or >already dissipated. > >From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list >and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta >Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002. > Interesting. The web site says "Scientifically viable challenges to mainstream paradigms". I applaud that, if they are scientifically viable, but I don't know either way. Do you? Science always has unanswered questions and reasons to modify theories. If I were you I would contact Van Flandern and ask him it your creation science approach is what he favors over big bang theory. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071455340001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has >> >> >> > gotten so >> >> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >> >> >> >> >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? >> >> > >> >> > Columbia >> >> >> >> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's >> >> a >> >> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. >> >> >> >> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? >> > >> >Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to >> >visit >> >the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. >> > >> What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the >> history of witchcraft? > > My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that > covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates > against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That > college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons > was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these > same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? > I would like your comments about this article: > > > The Light-Distance Problem > by David F. Coppedge > > Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how > light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. > People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to > discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and > seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously > requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a > result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the > rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. > > For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have > written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for > dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of > the Bible. > > A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical > creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not > getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have > established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find > it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of > the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance > problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. > > According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions > from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny > region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles > going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each > part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the > problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all > parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the > cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If > no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of > temperature? > > The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular > cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in > 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued > by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), > the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with > a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the > expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise > balance between the acceleration rate and density. > > Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of > problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should > begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is > limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to > be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by > numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. > > David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion > Laboratory. > (The views expressed are his own.) > jason I guess Coppedge never studied inflation theory. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >> >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? >> > >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >> > several other Christians and myself. >> >> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to >> not comprehend? >> >> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, >> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? >> >> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. Claims like this cause me not to respect you because you are so easily gulled, but refuse to admit it. >I was present when he >debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, >he won that debate. You are wrong. Gish may have conned you, but he didn't win a debate. >Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I >debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. >Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed >that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. >Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. Gish lied. You bought his lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:45:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071545570001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >> >> > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> >> >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? >> > >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >> > several other Christians and myself. >> >> Gish is not a "she", he's a "he". Again, on what basis do you find Gish >> worthy of respect? Is it his lies, his deceptions or his fundamental >> dishonesty you find so worthy of respect? > >I respect him for his accomplishments. > He conned you into believing his lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:02:46 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071502460001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <nVj9i.16080$FN5.13235@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406072354530001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1mpej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:59:23 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false >> >> >> >information? >> >> >> > >> >> >> The evidence says they are. >> >> > >> >> > I disagree. There are at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees >> >> >> >> You know, that's a big part of your problem - you let someone else do >> >> your >> >> thinking for you. "They have degrees, so they must be right, I should >> >> believe them." It's bullshit. Either what they say - their claims and >> >> the support for them - holds up, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it makes >> >> no difference if they have 90 PhDs or 90,000, they are still spewing >> >> crap. >> >> >> >> Have you examined the evidence? No, you haven't. I know that, because >> >> you persist in asking questions which are so basic that you could not >> >> examine the evidence without already knowing the answers. Hell, you even >> >> think Gish won a bunch of debates, which demonstrates you have not >> >> actually looked at what those debates covered, what claims were made and >> >> what support was offered for the claims. >> >> >> >> Why would you let someone else do your thinking for you? Aside from the >> >> fact that they're doing a very bad job of it, you were given a brain... >> >> why let it atrophy instead of using it? >> > >> > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other >> > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to >> > the books that I have read related to creation science. >> >> All that we hear, see and read influences our thought processes. Tell us >> something that we don't know. Jason, you never told me whether or not you >> think that Jesus Christ is holding the nucleus of the atom together. Your >> much respected hero believes this and I just wondered what you believe. > >I have stated in other posts--I don't know the details related to how God >created the solar system and life on this planet. > Yet you try to use your ignorance of these facts as an argument for your anti-scientific fantasies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071544200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <jnugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:54:52 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other >> > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to >> > the books that I have read related to creation science. >> >> I let them "influence" me because they provide actual sound reasoning and >> actual evidence. Yours don't. >> >> Again, that's the problem; you let them do your thinking for you, >> instead of doing it yourself. I don't. If a scientist I'm reading makes >> a claim which seems outlandish, I'll reject it until it is supported by >> evidence . You, by contrast, simply note that someone with a degree wrote >> it down, therefore it must be right. It has never, apparently, occurred >> to you that others can be just as dishonest and deceitful as you yourself >> are, so you swallow crap hook, line and sinker. >> >> By contrast, we know people can be dishonest; we even know they can be >> simply mistaken. This is why we demand evidence of the claim. The fact >> they have a degree, or that there are lots of them, means fuck all . >> Either they provide the evidence supporting their claims, or their claims >> are rejected, out of hand. >> >> As far as Gish is concerned, we have seen, repeatedly, his lies, his >> frauds, his deceptions, his foundation of dishonesty upon which he bases >> virtually everything he does, so we do not trust him at all, but we have >> also noticed that, when it comes to his debates, his publications and >> the rest, he fails, miserably, to substantiate his claims except, perhaps >> on occasion, some trivial side point here and there. >> >> Since he does not support his claims with evidence - or even sound >> reasoning - his claims are rightly discarded. Problem is, when you do >> that, he's left with nothing. For some reason, you seem to think that >> this nothingness is a winning point for him, that his dishonesty is worthy >> of respect. >> >> Why you would respect a known liar who, even when faced with the proof he >> is lying continues to lie about the exact same point, isn't clear. >> >> Oh, actually, it is - because you haven't got a shred of honesty yourself, >> as you persist in demonstrating. > >Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to the Big >Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that? There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to Planck time. >It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe >almost anything that scientists tell them to believe. > Nope, they are willing to accept evidence. You, on the other hand, reject evidence to worship lies. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 2:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181025050.390273.34...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 7:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f422j1$jqd$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > If you want to read about that evidence, I > > > > > suggest that you read either of these books: > > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > > > > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > > > > > No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of > > > > any kind. > > > > If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your > > > choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science > > > to agree with you. > > > Agree to admit that their books contain no evidence? I don't expect > > them to do that: they are fundamentally dishonest! > You are correct. We would never admit it and I doubt that you would admit > that Stephen Gould's books contain no evidence. Bugger off, Jason. You've already admitted to knowing nothing about genetics, chemistry or cosmology. Your idea of "evidence" is that a certain number of people believe you or that some guy wrote a book with X number of pages. You have no idea what constitutes evidence. Hint: it has to be something we can see and measure and it has to be something reproducable so that people around the world can agree that it is real. Evolution has such evidence. Creationism does not. Until you admit that, I'm not playing with you anymore. You can take your ball and go home. Please don't cry or complain to your mommy. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Scientists may have theories or ideas about the answer to that question, > but do they have evidence? I doubt it. > > If I asked about the chemical composition of the energy mass that expanded > during the Big Bang, scientists may have some theories or ideas about the > answer to that question, but do they have evidence? I doubt it. Find out for yourself what evidence they DO have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis. And written "evidence" that has not been authenticated or witnessed is dismissed as fraudulent. Every day. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181031352.198793.304...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) > come to be? > > > > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is > > > > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to zero. It > > > > is possible to get something from nothing. > > > > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the > > > natural laws > > > Trust me. There's no conflict. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence > > Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be > changed. You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing. > There is a conflict. I take it then you didn't follow the links. Your "knowledge of physics" is a century out of date. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I know that God exists. I know a person that had Parkinson's Disease. That > person prayed and asked God to heal her. She was healed by God and that > lady no longer has Parkinson's Disease. A man from my church has a brain > tumor. He prayed and the members of our church prayed and that tumor > disapeared. And yet these people remain mentally ill if they continue to suffer from God delusion. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181031871.487229.89...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article > > <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. > > > Gish's book > > > > > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If > > > > > you want > > > > > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you > > > > > will have > > > > > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option > > > would be to > > > > > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" > > > into their > > > > > > > > >search engine. > > > > > > > > >jason > > > > > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you > have no > > > > > > > > reason, unless you give me one. > > > > > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the > "Cambrian > > > > > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots > > > of sites > > > > > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your > own google > > > > > > > search. > > > > > > > How is that evidence for creation? > > > > > > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This > > > > > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed > > > > > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY > > > > > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not > > > > > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of > > > > > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been > > > > > > proposed. > > > > > > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. > Gish and > > > > > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. > > > > > No. They don't. I've checked. > > > > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the > > > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence > > > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in > > > his book? > > > I've checked the IRC website. Do Morris and Gish have any reason NOT > > to present their supposed evidence on their website? > I believe the information was in his fossil book. So you admit that the IRC website contains NO evidence for creationism. We are finally making progress. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.