Did the Flood really happen?

Could it be changed by the burning of the sun

I need your help in some research I am conducting. It will require honesty on your part, which you will undoubtedly find very difficult since that is a completely alien concept to creationists and especially to you, but do please try nonetheless.

You are obviously scientifically illiterate. Since I have been scientifically literate for as far back as I can remember, I cannot comprehend how scientific illiterates think that things work. I have asked scientific illiterates several times, but they only become very hostile and uncommunicative.

Please answer the following few questions as to your own understanding. If you have recently learned that how you thought about them is wrong, then indicate that but also describe how you used to think about them.

The questions:

1. How does the sun burn? That is to say, what is the process by which it burns? And what does it burn?

2. How does the burning of the sun affect the sun's mass? That is to say, if the burning of the sun causes it to lose mass, how does that loss of mass happen?

3. In combustion, which is the burning of a fuel in the presence of oxygen, does the mass of the fuel cease to exist?

4. If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?
   

Your honest answers can go a long way towards removing misunderstandings between us.

Juvenissun writes: Not really. The earth has a lot of granite. The moon has none.

You probably think cookies aren't made from flour, butter, shortening, eggs, and other ingredients. You probably think cookies are made of cookies.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You're forgetting, he IS a geologist. And also a YEC.

I've been hearing rumors to the effect that he's a geologist, but he hasn't demonstrated any knowledge commensurate with that title. Despite Dr. Sheldon Cooper's position that geology is not really a science, it does still require a certain degree of scientific training, something that Juvenissun clearly does not possess as he has demonstrated over and over again ad nauseum.

I have commented before about a YEC I once had a short correspondence with. He said that he was a scientist and was very insistent on that point. So I asked him which scientific field and he said, "All fields." OK, that rotting fish has started to smell. I kept pushing for more information until he finally explained that he had attended a science class once. I never could get him to tell me whether he had stayed awake in class.

It is a sad fact that you must always verify everything that a YEC tells you. I wish that it weren't that way, but it is what it is.

So, if he has claimed that he is a geologist, what does he base that claim on? And why is he so terrified of talking with a geologist? Especially after he had made such a big show of demanding to talk with a geologist.

There is the possibility that he did receive some schooling in geology, but at a creationist school. In that case, he most likely learned less about geology and more about what they rejected about geology. For example, in the 1988 the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- Morris and Gish's baby) then in Santee, Calif, was up for accreditation renewal of their master's degrees in science and were refused (big legal hassle ensued; read that whole story here). Part of the process involved a visitation committee visiting the ICR to watch their classes in action; I have a copy of their report. They observed a graduate class in microbiology and their ICR guide made sure to point out that they used the same text book as most secular universities do for their graduate microbiology classes. But the difference lay in how this class was using that book. Every student had a black felt marker and the instructor was leading the class through the book page by page telling them which passages to redact out because, "We don't believe that. And we don't believe that either."

So if Juvenissun received his "geology training" in such an institute, then that could explain the lack of width and breadth in his knowledge along with its lack of quality.

That's illustrated with what happened at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC); Robert Schadewald's report was where I first heard of the recently-late Glenn R. Morton. After his presentation of geological evidence that disproves the claims of Flood Geology (part of that article in Message 1 that Juvenissun kept asking about but refused to even look at), the entire geology staff of the ICR, all two or three of them led by John Morris (who claimed to be a petroleum geologist), attacked him verbally with hostile questions. He chopped Morris off at the ankles with two questions:

1. "What oil company did you work for?" "Well, uh, none. But I taught petroleum geology one semester at a university." At the University of Oklahoma as I seem to recall, but I didn't want to commit that to the quote. And this is yet another instance of a YEC claiming credentials that he doesn't rate.

2. "How old is the earth?" John Morris: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." I have that one on my quotes page since it clearly demonstrates the corner that YEC have painted themselves into -- if they ever have to admit that the earth is far from young, then they are taught that that will disprove the Bible and also God (or else that God is a liar who must not be worshiped).
   

It was after the answer to that second question that Morton told them about having hired several geology graduates of the ICR (actually, from Christian Heritage College when it used to house the ICR) to work for him at an oil exploration company. It turns out that most of what they were taught was "what is wrong with geology", so when they had to work all day long, day after day, with rock-hard geological evidence that "didn't exist and couldn't exist if Scripture were to have any meaning", they all suffered severe crises of faith.

And then you have YEC geologists like Dr Steve Austin, whose PhD Geology from a secular university was financed by the ICR -- they needed an actual PhD Geology on their staff and couldn't find one so they basically bought one. While a graduate student, he wrote geology articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (at first associated with the ICR until there was a falling out) under the pseudonym of Stuart Nevins. I read some of his articles and was very disappointed to see him use deliberate misrepresentations of geology that even first-year undergraduates would know better than to say (and here he was a graduate student?). Since he got his doctorate and have gone to work for the ICR under his own name, I've seen him engaged in such dishonest actions as gathering samples for radiometric dating making certain to cherry-pick ones that would give a false result -- being a trained geologist, he knows how to do that -- so that he can misrepresent them as evidence that the dating methods don't work.

So then what Juvenissun's story is supposed to be, I don't know. But I'm not holding out much hope for him.

Sorry, no matter how brilliant your argument is, these words are enough to turn me off.

Which is what demonstrates that you are indeed a f*cking idiot who's just looking for any lame excuse to avoid discussion by clutching your pearls and complaining about the vapors while fluttering your fan.

You presented a silly scenario and expected a normal person to take it seriously. On the face of it, your "question" was nothing but a piece of brain-dead stupid ad-hoc nonsense, so I informed you of that fact.

In my reply to which you are avoiding to reply yourself, I told you (you are forever lifting quotes out of context, typical of the thoroughly dishonest creationist practice of quote-mining):

DWise1 writes: Now, if you have a valid explanation for your silly scenario, then do present it. But if it's nothing but stupid made-up bullshit nonsense (which is all that you have been presenting here and which is the stuff of theology and not of science -- this is a science forum so you should take your made up bullshit nonsense (AKA theology) to a theology forum), then why waste everybody's time? Especially when you will only refuse to listen yet again.

So why don't you just present your valid explanation for your silly scenario? Oh yeah, because you yourself know that it's just stupid made-up bullshit nonsense.

The solution to your problem is not to resort to hysteria, but rather to come up with valid questions and explanations. And to actually read replies instead of ignoring them. But that would require honesty, a concept that very sadly is completely alien to creationists.

Barbarian.

No, I am clean-shaven.

You, however. You ask a question and we hand you the answer, so you shit in our hand.

Who's being the barbarian here? Not me. Look in the mirror.

Juvenissun writes: I am not going to tell you how granite is made. But only let you know that moon has no granite.

Here's another hint for you: You don't roast a chicken in the fridge.

Edited by ringo, : Stelling.

DWise1 writes: So then you agree that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid. I would talk to you again when you can talk in decency.

Just curious, but what is your native language? Your attempts at English keep coming off as rather odd. Prepositions are usually one of the hardest things to get right in a foreign language.

I "talk in decency" ... sorry, that's just too silly.

I talk to you in a far more decent manner than you deserve. If you wish to be treated with more decency, then you must yourself act far more decently than you have been.

And it is rather odd that you would go to clutching your pearls and suffering from the vapors over being told the simple truth that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid, which is what you yourself had just said!

BTW, I cannot help but notice that you completely avoid the kinetic energy part of that "idea". Is that because you do not know what kinetic energy is?

You really need to let us know just how abjectly ignorant you are. Otherwise, we will continue to misinterpret your faulty statements through ignorance as crass indecency to which we respond in kind.

Non-topic sniping hidden. - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Non-topic sniping hidden. - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

I believe that the topic Broken Thinking Skills & Pointless Discussion was specifically created to deal with this situation.

Probably going to be hiding some messages.

Adminnemooseus

Dwise1 writes: I've been hearing rumors to the effect that he's a geologist, but he hasn't demonstrated any knowledge commensurate with that title.

He's a geologist like I'm a theologian.

Juvenissun

Birthday:Aug 7, 1952 (Age: 68)
Occupation:Research and teaching
Faith: Baptist
Marital Status: Married
Geologist.

A YEC but work with OE models. No contradiction at all.
Fundamentalist.

Build conceptual dynamic models

juvenissun

First, that relationship between orbital elements holds true regardless of the mass of the central body (so long as that mass is sufficiently greater than the orbiting body; eg, the sun vis-à-vis any individual planet, any individual planet vis-à-vis any individual satellite be it natural or artificial). And since you are doubtlessly totally ignorant of universal gravitation: Gravitational Force: Fg = gravitational_constant × (masscentral body × massorbiting body) / distance2 If the central body's mass is significantly greater than the orbiting body's mass, then we can safely ignore the orbiting body's mass. Gravitational force can be changed by changing the distance or by changing the mass of the central body. Changing the mass of the central body happens far less often than changing the distance, though it can happen such as in the case of the sun losing mass by "burning". Second, we are comparing two different orbits at roughly the same point in time, since your ad hoc pipe dream involves a rapid change of orbits. Third, the effects on the sun's gravity even over extended periods of time has proven to be insignificant.

Take your argument one at a time.
In geology or in astronomy, a tiny bit change could be very significant. A model for the moon is that it goes away from the earth a little bit at a time, but continuous for a long time. And we see the significant consequence.

If the sun continued to lose its mass and/or the earth continued to gain mass, that would certainly be a process which made the earth go away from the sun continuously.

Thanks for the digging. I did not change since then except my age.

And it is rather odd that you would go to clutching your pearls and suffering from the vapors over being told the simple truth that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid, which is what you yourself had just said! BTW, I cannot help but notice that you completely avoid the kinetic energy part of that "idea". Is that because you do not know what kinetic energy is?

When talk about Geology, the difference between me and everyone else here is like the difference between a Ph.D. and school kids.

Do you know the Himalayan Mountains once simply drop straightforward down a few thousand feet? The feature is called "tectonic erosion". If you care to learn, you may look it up.

I do believe that had some significant effect to the orbit of the earth.

Did I talk to you a lot about granite? You should know that I am not kidding around.