Did the Flood really happen?

See, here is the trick I can easily catch.
I did not say that.What I said is toward "that particular case". And even that, it is because nobody reported the orbit change after that incident. However, because nobody measured it, we are not sure that nothing about the orbit was changed.

Dwise1 - I’ll bet that Adam and Eve (and their direct progeny) just liked it HOT!!!

The question is: It is a question asked for TIME. The format should be
T(old) = f T (now)And your calculation gives an answer of distance. Appreciate your effort. But do you see where went wrong?

Oh darn! Here I thought that you had actually learned something, but now you are doubling down on abject ignorance ... yet again!Changes in the earth's spin would not affect the earth's orbit. Period! Not in the particular case that you are talking about here, nor in any of the other cases/messages where you have made that mistake.OK, then. Explain to us in detail just exactly how changing the earth's spin is supposed to change the period of its orbit!You want to claim that changing the earth's spin will change the length of the year? So Show us! Explain it to us!

That isn't the issue. You wanted me to agree with your idea before you show us the math. That's like you agreeing that God doesn't exist before I show you why. I don't think you're eager to do that.

Your problem is that you think when the earth be put in the orbit of Mercury, it would have the climate like today's Mercury.That is wrong.

Yes, I would certainly agree with you. Because I WANT to see your proof. If you failed, then I will certainly withdraw my agreement.

That particular earthquake was caused by a big reverse fault, which shock the earth. It would be similar to take a huge hammer and give the earth a big blow. Could that change the orbit a little bit?

That's no way to approach a discussion. Don't pretend to agree with me. That's dishonest. Tell me up front that you disagree with me. Then I'll tell you why you SHOULD agree with me.

Basics.Try to learn some basics.The Earth got hit by something big enough to have created the moon and that did not appreciably change the orbit.Basics.There has NEVER been a worldwide flood at any time humans existed.Basics.In the beginning none of the kinds mention in the Bible existed.Basics.In the beginning nothing was created as male and female and even today most living things are nether male or female and of those that do show a sex there are male and female and neither male or female and one of the three choices but then later changing into a different sex or changing sex when necessary or both male and female at the same time.Basics.The order in the Genesis 1 Creation Myth is totally impossible and refuted by all the evidence.Basics.There is no science to be found in the Bible.Basics.There is no such thing as "The Bible" and all of the various Canon as well as all the scripture are solely the creation of human imagination.Basics.You really need to learn the basics.

Yes, I see exactly where it went wrong.I made the mistake of trying to provide actual information, the results of an actual pertinent calculation, to a creationist.I made the mistake of forgetting what a f*cking idiot you are. How do you even tie your shoes in the morning? The period of an orbit (AKA TIME) depends on the size of the orbit (AKA DISTANCE). IOW, Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion:

quote:

---

The ratio of the square of an object's orbital period with the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit is the same for all objects orbiting the same primary.

---

Besides, the original question was how big of an orbit would be needed to get the orbital period that you need. That's DISTANCE!Or are you stumbling over big words that you are too mentally deficient to understand? Like "orbital period" which means "how long it takes (AKA TIME) to complete one orbit (AKA ONE YEAR). Or "semi-major axis" which is a measurement of an ellipse and hence which gives you the size of the orbit.The length of an orbit's year is directly related to the size of the orbit. That's how it works! Increase the size of the orbit and you make its year longer. Decrease the size of the orbit and you make its year shorter. That's how it works! And there is no possible amount of self-deception you can apply that will change it.You have received the answer. Accept it.If you choose to reject it, then you dare not continue to make your demonstrably false assertions. Because every time you do, you will be pointed back to the answer that you received and reject and you will be called out for deliberately asserting falsehoods.Edited by dwise1, : Third Law

And what ad hoc false assertions will you make up for that nonsense? And then reject all explanations of why you are completely wrong.If you are going to try to talk about science, then learn something about science!If you refuse to learn, then just stick with theology where you can just make up any stupid shit you want to. You can get away with that in theology, but not in science.

I already explained that to you, but being an idiotic creationist you ignored it in order to maintain your precious ignorance.Earthquakes can raise or lower sections of the crust, which would slow down or speed up the earth's spin because of the effects of angular momentum. No effect on the earth's orbit which would require changes to its linear momentum. Although analogous, angular momentum is completely different than linear momentum.Besides, this was that "particular case" that you emphasized as being the one that you accepted was wrong. So now you are backing away from your admission about this one too?Complete and utter disgusting dishonesty. Have you ever noticed that people don't like creationists? Ever wonder why that is? It's because creationists are such f*cking dishonest creeps.Edited by dwise1, : creepsEdited by dwise1, : Removed possible ambiguity in the last sentence

quote:

---

If so, don't talk about the age of Noah. That is perfectly fine with me

---

You seem to think that you have the authority to dictate what other people may or may not say. You are wrong.The fact that I am not gullible enough to believe your assertions without very strong evidence is not a reason why I should avoid discussion of the issue. It is just a reason why you want me to avoid the discussion.

I assume you might be right and want to hear your reason.
Why is that dishonest?