|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Studies in ancient corals that show daily growth lines with an annual variation in thickness, show 420 days per year in the Silurian, 410 in Devonian, consistent with gradual slowing from tidal effects from the moon, and with both our state now and with current physics.
This alone makes the idea of the Earth more recently having a hugely reduced number of days per year beyond unlikely. Also there are many studies on ancient temperatures at various times, and no evidence of the huge heating that would be induced by moving the Earth much closer to the Sun. In following this thread, why am l reminded of Bassanio's comment re his friend in The Merchant of Venice : "Gratiano's reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in a bale of hay, you will seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search." ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: The next step is absolutely necessary if we ARE to agree with your claim. On the face of it your idea is - to put it politely - highly implausible. Unless you can show otherwise it should be rejected. If you won’t do the next step - whether out of laziness or fear that it will not go the way you want - we will not and should not agree with your idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate you should have a good idea of the number of years.
quote: So, only a few thousand years at most. And most of those would be youR shorter years.
quote: Which is obviously far too long. Even 5 thousand (of our years) would be pushing the Biblical chronology - and certainly goes back well before the existence of human beings.
quote: Obviously incorrect estimates that do not address the major problems of the idea (it is still not a model) do nothing to suggest that it is truly possible. Indeed the choice of incorrect estimates suggests that even you don’t believe it is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The rest of what you said is real junky. Sad. Well, your entire operation is extremely junky. Especially as you follow in the footsteps of convicted frauds like Kent Hovind. Avoiding discussion. Dodging serious and legitimate questions. Spouting bullshit assertions that you refuse to support in any way, let alone discuss. What is wrong with you? Plus you completely miss the reason for presenting the extremely bad example set by Kent Hovind: Don't do what this charlatan does. Don't be that guy! So what do you do? You zealously strive to be that guy, to be a charlatan and a fraud. You zealously strive to do the same wrong things that he does. You know that it's wrong. You know why it's wrong. You know the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Yet you insist on doing it anyway. What is wrong with you?
But we can certainly try some time periods to examine the model. Model? What model? You have no model! Models must be constructed and it is that process of constructing a model which generates the body of evidence associated with that model. If you actually have a model, then you also have that model's evidence. The total lack of evidence indicates that there is no model. Despite repeated requests and demands for you to present the evidence for your model, you have steadfastly refused to do so -- actually, you have resorted to desperate dishonest tricks to avoid presenting any evidence at all costs. Why? Because you have no model and you know it! You are consciously resorting to those dishonest tricks to cover up the fact that you are nothing but a fraud. We are trying to get you to actually build a model and not lie about having a model which doesn't really exist. We are trying to help you become an honest creationist. And of course you fight desperately against that, because even you must realize what we have learned in decades of bitter experience, that the only honest creationist is an ex-creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Studies in ancient corals that show daily growth lines with an annual variation in thickness, show 420 days per year in the Silurian, 410 in Devonian, consistent with gradual slowing from tidal effects from the moon, and with both our state now and with current physics. This alone makes the idea of the Earth more recently having a hugely reduced number of days per year beyond unlikely. Yes, the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down is about 2 ms per day per century (ie, every 100 years, the day has become 2 milliseconds longer). Since the international second is based on the length of the day around 1900, current days are 2 ms longer and hence atomic time (the official time base) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC -- our clock time) accumulate 2 ms of error every day, resulting in an accumulated error of about one second after 18 months of time. For that reason, the two clocks must be synchronized by subtracting a leap second from UTC at intervals of about 18 months, analogous to how leap years work and why they're necessary. Because of variations in the forces that are slowing down and speeding up the earth's rotation, the earth's rotation is constantly monitored by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). My last work before retiring was more than 20 years on our product lines which used GPS receivers for precision frequency and time division (vital to the operation of communications networks, such as your cell phone). We were constantly working with leap seconds. GPS time started on Sunday, 06 Jan 1980, so there were many technical and popularized articles about the NAVSTAR project, such that many people heard about leap seconds for the very first time even though they'd been in use since around 1970. Among those hearing about leap seconds for the first time was a creationist named Walt Brown. He didn't understand what they were (frankly, the Popular Science article which he referenced along with a couple USAF magazines devotes just one paragraph to the subject and that wasn't written very clearly), so he made the mistake of thinking that adding a leap second meant that the earth's rotation had slowed down by one second in 18 months. That led to the infamous false "leap second" creationist claim which assumes a rate of rotational deceleration that's hundreds of times too great and that refuses to die even though it was soundly refuted within a few years (even Walt Brown appeared to have realized his mistake and stopped using it, though he didn't stop using his false cytochrome c claim in a manner which proves deliberate lying on his part). My web page on that claim is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/earth_rotation.html. But frankly, I have never been to understand why creationists would think that changes in the length of the day would have any effect on the length of the year which is instead dependent on the period of the earth's orbit.
{ABEOK, that Popular Science article, "The Riddle of the Leap Second" by Arthur Fisher (Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110- 113, 164-166), actually had four short paragraphs describing leap seconds, which I quote on my web page (from page 164 of that article): quote: The problem with that quote is that you pretty much need to already understand what leap seconds are to be able to understand it. Without that previous knowledge, it's easy to fall victim to the same kind of confusion that Walt Brown did. In 1987 (14 years after this article was published) the responsibilities of the BIH were taken over by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS -- initials carried over from its earlier name, the International Earth Rotation Service). Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
That's really stupid. How would you react if I said I would prove God doesn't exist only after you agree?
No, I will try the math after:1. you agreed on my idea, Juvenissin writes:
Why would I request anything from you? So far, you look like you know nothing. 2. you request it. Showing your work is for YOUR benefit, not mine."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's interesting that we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles) showing they were constructed about 7000 years ago or pretty much contemporary with Adam & Eve. Seems that after they left the garden they were busy little beavers.
Makes you wonder when "Don't fence me in" was actually written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jar writes:
Hmm.... They had a preference for geometric figures a long time ago. we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles)"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
It sure is a good thing that I am retired and quarantined. I waste
nearly all my time anyway, and threads like this one make it easier! Thanks, Juve!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It's interesting that we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles) showing they were constructed about 7000 years ago or pretty much contemporary with Adam & Eve. Seems that after they left the garden they were busy little beavers. There's a classic YEC PRATT which is their "human population model", AKA "The Bunny Blunder". I examine it on my web page, THE BUNNY BLUNDER, which includes examining a few of the versions that Henry Morris presented (he seems to be the primary source for the PRATT). Another of my sources was the David H. Milne article, "Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid" (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 4, No. 4, Fall 1984) that makes the same point that you do:
quote: My comment to that on my web page is, "My father was right; we HAVE gotten soft!" Milne also gives the reason why this PRATT is called the "Bunny Blunder":
quote: I first heard about the Bunny Blunder in a 1985 presentation by Fred Edwords; it brought down the house and left the audience ROFL'ing (rolling on the floor laughing). Edwords finished that section of his presentation with a quote, also from Milne as I seem to recall:
quote: Edited by dwise1, : grammatical editadded reference to audience response to Fred Edwords' telling of it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
DWise1 writes:
1. From Adams age to the age of Abraham, roughly 900 to 200. What are sample ages that you want to be able to solve for?What are sample "decreased longevity" ages that have since arisen? Over how long a period of time was this change supposed to have taken place? Actual start and stop dates would be an added plus. 2. Do you see the decrease of age in the above? 3. That is a good question. We do not know. But we can certainly try some time periods to examine the model. And you still have not answered the question of how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require. We keep asking for it, trying to drag it out of you like having to pull teeth, and you remain clench-jawed in your refusal to provide that information. If you actually had a model for this, then you would already have that figure (ie (repeated here because of your extremely short attention span, selective blindness, and selective stupidity), how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require). Giving us that required value would be trivially simple for you to do. But since you in fact do not have any model -- nothing more than the merest glimmer of the beginning of a potential model -- you cannot give us that required value because you do not have it. For that matter, you haven't even given it any thought yet.
Start developing your "model"! Figure out what you need for your model to work. Test every assumption you make (knowing what your model needs for it to work is essential to this part). Work with others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Juvenissun writes: So, on one hand, you talk geology to "prove" the Flood is not possible.On the other hand, you said Noah is a fictional person, so both Noah and the Flood are not possible. Noah, as depicted in the Bible, did not exist because a global flood did not exist. If there was a Noah he is not the person described in the Bible.
If so, why should I bother to talk to you on geology and science? Why do you ignore geology and the sciences?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1339 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
tart, perhaps, with a fifty-kilometer diameter rocky asteroid coming within 500 km of the Earth’s surface, and tell me how much it shifts our orbit. I don't know the equations for the calculation. But I do believe the fly-by will have some effect to the orbit of the earth. A few years ago, even the earthquake which caused tsunami in Indian Ocean affect the orbit. I would assume an asteroid of the moon size, fly-by the earth 50 km above the earth. I guess the method of calculation should be the same. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1339 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Sorry, no answer to your question.
Both Noah and the Flood do not exist. That is fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1339 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require Assume Adam can live 120 years, which is the same as a normal person could today (happy with this assumption?). That is 120 circles around the sun. In the same period of time, the earth at Adam's time made 950 circles. Could you figure out how faster (than today) should the earth circulate at Adam's time? I guess this would be a good math question for school kids. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024