Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

No, it's a genuine mistake by Christians to equate trust and faith, but they aren't the same.Trust is belief in someone or something because they've never let you down before. (Unless you regularly trust people that continually lie to you.)Faith is belief in someone or something in spite of them letting you down.I'm going to guess that God has not answered every single one of your prayers. You ahve prayed for things and not recieved them, yes? But you still have faith in god. Would you trust a bridge that collapsed the last time you drove over it?They're two different things. You may trust god, and have faith in bridges, but those are different things from your faith in god and your trust in bridges. As for definitions, you might want to look those up before you shoot your mouth off about them. Most of the links I find are ones that debunk those artifacts. NO, IT DOESN'T!That's what we're trying to tell you. Gravity doesn't stop working because you're incrementally higher from the earth. They're talking about local changes in barometric pressure. Any increase locally means there's a decrease somewhere else. The global pressure doesn't change. (Barometric pressure is not the same as atmospheric pressure because the two are caused by different things.)Here's a thought experiment. Stand on two bathroom scales, a foot on each one. Lean to one side. Your weight goes up on that scale. Does that mean you weigh more? Of course not - it's simply a local change. Your "global" weight remains the same. I don't even understand your point here, and I don't think you do either. Atmospheric pressure isn't exerted on the atmosphere, it's exerted by the atmosphere on things that are in the atmosphere. Again, these basic errors don't bode well for your ability to debate atmospheric change. What, like Mexico? Or Florida? Where are you talking about? The warmer it is year-round, the more disease and parasites there are. Then why did Noah and the other pre-flood people keep goats and sheep and cattle as livestock?

edited to replace a bunch of stuff that disappeared on meI have in the above post acknowledged that the gravitational pull is a bit less at greater heights.However, for this kind of thing you need to get the numbers right, not just hand waving.Since the gravitational pull is only a wee bit less up to 300 km and most of the earth's current atmosphere is under 30 km you still have your problem.Why are you still arguing physics? I thought you wanted to play the miracle trump card. Once you play that you don't need to play physics. You can just make up any story you want about what God did.If, however, you do want to keep playing physics you'll have to get it right. And for some of this you need to get the numbers right. Handwaving "less" and "more" doesn't do it unless everyone agrees that the amounts make a difference. If we don't all agree then someone has to do a calculation.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-09-2003]

quote:

---

Water vapor is all around us, and it is lighter than air. It rises with warm air and upward moving air currents. When this moist warm air enters a layer of cold air, the water cools and condenses into tiny drops, becomes part of a cloud, and starts falling. It falls into the warm air, and may evaporate again, and move up into the cold air over and over again. So, parts of a cloud are continually disappearing and reforming. And that is what keeps a cloud up in the sky.

---

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/clouds.htmThe above link supports my contention that enough heat spread over the earth will keep a canopy of vapor up.The wee hours are upon us here in the East. Gotta hit hay. Will respond to others when I can get to it, the good Lord willing.

No one's disputing this. It's just that the amount of water you're talking about would take enough heat to sterilize the Earth. Even granting you Ned's 9% reduction in gravitational attraction at that altitude.

Yes and your contention is correct and we have been saying exactly the same thing! Yea, isn't it great to agree!! super duper.Oh, uh, Buz, one little thing. As I mentioned in my earlier post, sometimes you have to produce some actual numbers when playing this game. Uh, Buz -- "enough heat"? HOW MUCH HEAT?

quote:

---

Most of the links I find are ones that debunk those artifacts.

---

This's a copout on truth. Observe for yourself to make a rational judgement, if you want to be rational and objective.

{qs... that altitude[/qs]Not so fast. Buz didn't give us an altitude. I picked about 10 times the upper limit of the current atmosphere because that's also about spaceship in low earth orbit height.I think Buz has the earth in big trouble long before we have to worry about that height. But he hasn't supplied a number yet.

Good point. Hard for us to do for all of the various pieces of data of course. Instead we might look into the details supplied with the descriptions of the data. How carefully was it collected? Exactly what is described? Were any possible errors or contaminations discussed and the reasons for ruling them out included. Have the finds been made available for others of opposing views to review? What were their comments and why were they made?If there are a few anomolies are there alternate explanations?And you may not like it but there are those in the creationist communitity who seem to believe the ends do justify the means. Shall we start a thread about liars?

Buzz, you're a real piece of work, ya know that? You're insisting that no one has refuted your claims about Baugh, etc. I invite your attention back to message 44 on this thread where each and every one of your non-biblical claims was addressed - and rebutted. And before you state that "they weren't refuted", I'd like to draw your attention to your post 41 that mine was a response to. The response I gave in #44 was precisely calculated to provide the exact same level of detail as you did in making your initial claim. You not only failed to provide substantiation of your assertions, you utterly failed to even address the post. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to post Talk about copouts. Almost 160 posts and you STILL haven't addressed the rebuttals (hint: a good start would be to provide data or evidence in support of your initial claim inre Baugh, etc. It is YOUR claim that Baugh is valid. YOU provide either substantiating evidence OR valid arguments in support.)

In the interest of staying on topic I will not start discussing the Snowball Earth Hypothesis. However there are some things I must respond to.

quote:

---

You haven't been reading well and assimilating have you Rocky?
1. The prophecies of the past being accurately fulfilled implicates fulfillment in the future.
2. The forest fires and heatup trend adds to the implication of prophecy fulfillment.
3. To that I've explained in some yet unrefuted common sense terms how under the right conditions it could happen.
4. My hypothesis includes the supernatural which whether or not one believes, would fill in where natural laws are insufficient, the most significant being the heating and drying up of the planet, causing widespread significant evaporation. The prophecy clearly implicates the supernatural here.

---

So far you have not produced any "evidence" that might convince me that you are doing anything other than shoehorning events in the natural world into the pattern the Bible requires. Much of what you have already claimed has been refuted. And the natural laws are quite sufficient to explain global warming - and the planet is not drying up.

quote:

---

It's all been open to debate for a long time and holding up quite well.

---

As far as I can see, this isn't true. So explain how your hypothesis is holding up please.The Rock Hound

So we agree! That's exactly what I told you, and calculated for you, several pages ago: you can hold up 1% of the water now in the oceans by heating the atmosphere to 262 degrees F. Poached Noah, anyone?

Sorry - I was angry when I wrote the last post, and I didn't read the rest of the thread. Looks like people have been busy though... A pat on the back to Quetsal, for pointing out the rebuttals Ok then. No more screwing around or getting off topic. If anyone is going to support or deny buzsaw's ideas then they should post links or citations - and hopefully we can end this once and for all. Sound good?The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

But you said to do a search? His comment was that you suggestion returns a lot of rebuttals to these things. And you seem to have ducked that little issue.And since you've done the observations of these things and for all the evidence for evolution etc. could you tell us how you found time?What observations have you make? How carefully? What rational thought did you bring to bear? Did you publish any of this in a clear form?

I'm not sure what the smiley means. If it means you realize how ridiculous this statement is and that it was only intended in jest, then it doesn't actually address the statement you were replying to where I said, "You gotta be kidding. All your side of the discussion has demonstrated is how little science you know, and how resistant you are to learning any."If, on the other hand, the smiley is saying, "Isn't it something how a little bumpkin like me can tie all you scientific types in knots," then it only reinforces what people have been saying. You know so little of science that you not only don't understand how wrong most of your arguments are, you don't even understand the explanations of why they're wrong. Because of this you're unable to directly address what people have told you, and you're reduced to repeating already rebutted arguments, as you do here: As has been told to you over and over and over again, global warming and global drought are not synonyms. Some places will get wetter and some places will get drier. Providing citations about places where things are getting drier does nothing to rebut the citations about places that are getting wetter, including your residence in New York.Here's another example of you repeating yourself because you don't understand the counterarguments: Unless you're planning for this water vapor to rise thousands of miles, the height is irrelevant to gravitational attraction. Gravity ten miles up is only very slightly less than on the ground. This has been explained to you before. Then there's this incredible statement: This simply says that you're going to ignore the explanations and believe what you want. The math has been presented to you and the process has been described. An effective rebuttal would show where the math or the process were wrong. You do neither. There was never any "messianic millenium" when the seasons disappeared. Amos predicts that Israel will be reborn when the "the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman" and when "New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills." Since these last two events never happened, the "prophecy" is wrong.Constantly over the past couple thousand years people have found correspondences between the Bible and events contemporary to their time. In a book as huge as the Bible it is inevitable that this be so. But to convince those who don't accept prophecy as a real possibility, you're going to have to do much better than falsely drawing a single phrase out of a longer prophecy, as you do here with Amos. If prophecy is indeed so amazing then you have no need to attempt transparent tricks like quoting the part of a prophecy that came true while ignoring the rest, and indeed you hurt your cause when you do so.--Percy

quote:

---

If anyone is going to support or deny buzsaw's ideas then they should post links or citations - and hopefully we can end this once and for all. Sound good?

---

What's the big rush to end this?? Many threads go on for months. This's only been going for two or three weeks. If it slows down, so be it, but I'm not throwing in my towel unless I can be fairly and soundly refuted and that just hasn't happened though some want to make it look that way. Are you getting nervous about links I'm putting on supporting my argument? There's more out there too and I need some time to dig them up.