The Flood = many coincidences

Deleted by Poster. Too much rambling not enough focus.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Ek=1/2 m * v*vKinetic energy is 1/2 of mass multiplied by velocity that is multiplied upon itself.if the speed of a plate is 2.05 cm a yearAn estimate of the mass of an "average" continental lithospheric plate is 40.7x 10 21 kg or forty sextillion, seven hundred quintillion kilograms.
How much does a tectonic plate weigh? - AnswersSo the energy would beEk=1/2((4070000000000000000000000)*((2.05/100/356/24/60/60)*2.05/100/356/24/60/60)= 54237030.68 J of energy only by its movement not to count in the flows underneath the plates that drive themOne joule in everyday life is approximately:* the energy required to lift a small apple one metre straight up.
* the energy released when that same apple falls one metre to the ground.
* the energy released as heat by a person at rest, every hundredth of a second.
* the kinetic energy of a 50 kg human moving very slowly (0.2 m/s or 720 m/h).
* the kinetic energy of a tennis ball moving at 23 km/h (14 mph).I think this time i got the math right so you see you cannot dismiss the velocity even if it is so small because the mass is so huge. Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

You're making two arguments:

• Velocities on the order of centimeters per year are so slow that they can be effectively assumed to be zero.
  ​
• Objects with no velocity possess no kinetic energy and so cannot be the source of the energy that builds geologic structures like mountains.

About your first argument, that plate motions of centimeters per year can be approximated as zero, let's say that you're an architect/builder and that you design and have constructed a house, and a year later the owner tells you that one end of the foundation of the house is sinking at a rate of 4 centimeters/year, roughly the same as the velocities of the plates in the Atlantic ocean. You tell him that 4 cm/year is so slow that it can assumed to be zero and that he can ignore the problem. He doesn't accept this, but you ignore his continued requests that you pay for remedial action, so he sues you. What do you think your chances will be in court when you argue that a foundation sinking at a rate of 4 cm/year is not really moving and that the problem can be ignored?Regarding your second argument, that the kinetic energy of plates must be zero because the velocity is so close to zero, I don't think the kinetic energy of a plate is a primary contributor to the formation of geological structures. As an example let's use a small hypothetical plate that is roughly square and 1000 km on a side. Using the 4 cm/year velocity of Atlantic plates, and assuming an average plate thickness of 10 km and a continental crust density of 2.7 gm/cm³, the kinetic energy of the plate would only be about 22 joules. A kilowatt-hour of electricity is 3.6 million joules, so 22 joules is a very small amount. There is obviously very little kinetic energy in a continental plate.Most of the energy for the construction of significant geological structures must come from the same energy that drives plate motion. This is just a bald assertion with no supporting evidence. In the message you're replying to I supplied GPS evidence that plates do actually move. Can you provide any arguments based upon evidence that the plates do not move? In case it helps you, here are the links again, and you can refer to the original messages (Message 269 and Message 270) for the original context and arguments: I'm also curious how "spherical mechanics and displacement completely negate" lateral motion.--Percy

What energy are you talking about here? As far as I know the driving forces here are thermal. Okay, dynamically speaking, what is the mechanism of this expansion? Is the earth shrinking? Or is the crust accreting somewhere? Then you will need to explain a number of things. These would include the increasing age of the oceanic crust away from the ridge, the increasn thickness and age of sediments away from the ridge, the pattern of ages in the Hawaiian seamount chain, and the fault plane solutions for faults in the MOR. Why is there an axal valley at the MOR if the crustal plates are converging as you say? Where does the crust go after it collides with the other leading edge of oceanic crust? Mmm, ... not really. Okay, so what is your experience with geochronology? So why do you ignore what is actually happening at the mid-ocean ridges and impose your own fantastic solution?

I'm sure that architect has no idea about how this works, but I think it has to to with the fact that for plate motion on a sphere, you need to think in terms of spherical geometry.Basically, when two plates on a sphere are in relative motion, they converge and diverge in arcs. The velocity of convergence varies along the arc.It is kind of mind bending but, really, it's not a problem for plate tectonics. This has all been worked out despite what architect thinks.

I made it 8600 joules using the same figures.I think you added on too many 0s to your figure for the mass. Also there are 365 days in a year, not 356.However, there is an easier and more readily graspable way of putting this:The energy is such that, over the course of a year, a lithospheric plate moves about two centimeters. That's the figure that we need to know, and it's the figure we started off with.

lol seems a bit little tough it could be i was in a hurry. And yea the years got me im dyslectic sometimes i turn numbers around.tough still goes to show that you cannot ignore movement and say there is no energy in physics sometimes you ignore some decimal places not the whole number and still you get the approximate result not the actual one.Using the same logic as he has a cashier would not return change to him because coins hold little value and can be ignored.And that energy was only the kinetic energy (the energy required to get of something moving whiteout friction to a cretin speed).

My guess was that Architect was really referring to a coordinate system when he said "spherical mechanics," as if choice of coordinate system could make any difference.I long for the days when we had creationists who had thought through at least some things, instead of those here now who seem to post merely because they're offended (or outraged or whatever) by challenges to some of the specific details of their religious beliefs.--Percy

Ah yes, the "Sacred Inch and the pyramids". Remember that well.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

geologically speaking there is more than enough water to cover even everest by a mile or two,however what makes you think it was h20??when jesus said that whoever drinks of the water that i give him mean you will never thirst for h2o molecules????!!!!!!

You're talking about underground water? Well, on the same basis there's also enough water in the oceans "to cover even Everest by a mile or two" if you can persuade it to levitate out of the oceans. But otherwise not. No, I think that he was taking about grace or some similar theological abstraction, and I don't think that that's what the author of Genesis meant drowned all the puppies and kittens and duck-billed platypuses. I think that by "water" he meant water and by "rain" he meant rain.Of course, if you don't want to take Genesis literally, this would be a great time to stop being a creationist.

so what did he mean,grace or whatever,or h2o.

isn't the scripture writings inspired by the same authorEdited by b.r. bloomberg, : No reason given.

Is it your position that Noah's neighbors drowned in God's grace? If not, then instead of playing 20 questions, why don't you tell us what you mean?Don't fear the shift key.

What Jesus may or may not have said is totally irrelevant to the Biblical Flood, and the Biblical Flood has been soundly refuted. It still gets used though because it is a great way to separate ignorant Christians from their money.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!