Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, glowby, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,334 Year: 22,370/19,786 Month: 933/1,834 Week: 3/430 Day: 3/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
Taz
Member (Idle past 1636 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 166 of 341 (648449)
01-15-2012 9:07 PM


Is there a word to describe the following relationship between 3 people?

Guy A dates Guy B.

Guy A dates Girl C at the same time.

Guy B and Girl C are fine with Guy A dating both, but B and C are not sleeping together at all.

Is there an english wod that describe this relationship?


Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Omnivorous, posted 01-15-2012 10:47 PM Taz has responded
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2012 4:05 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 01-16-2012 4:11 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 173 by Wounded King, posted 01-16-2012 6:08 AM Taz has not yet responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2766 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 167 of 341 (648463)
01-15-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by crashfrog
01-15-2012 5:01 PM


Re: the flood
would you have an example? Dont the fundies believe that the flood occured 4500 BCE?

ABE - retract that. The flood was supposed to be around 2250 BCE.

I had my bullshit creationist claims mixed up.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2012 5:01 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 168 of 341 (648464)
01-15-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Taz
01-15-2012 9:07 PM


Taz writes:

Is there an english wod that describe this relationship?

Accommodation.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Taz, posted 01-15-2012 9:07 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Taz, posted 01-15-2012 11:11 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1636 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 169 of 341 (648472)
01-15-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Omnivorous
01-15-2012 10:47 PM


What if they get married? Polygamy or polyandre don't really describe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Omnivorous, posted 01-15-2012 10:47 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 170 of 341 (648488)
01-16-2012 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Taz
01-15-2012 9:07 PM


Is there a word to describe the following relationship between 3 people?

Guy A dates Guy B.

Guy A dates Girl C at the same time.

Guy B and Girl C are fine with Guy A dating both, but B and C are not sleeping together at all.

Is there an english wod that describe this relationship?

"Awesome".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Taz, posted 01-15-2012 9:07 PM Taz has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 171 of 341 (648489)
01-16-2012 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Taz
01-15-2012 9:07 PM


Taz writes:

quote:
Is there an english wod that describe this relationship?

It's not so much a word as a phrase. What I usually hear is, "They have an understanding."

If they were all dating each other, it would be a "triad," but that it's hub-and-spoke rather than maximally interconnected, we talk about it in reference to the fact that B and C "understand" that A is playing with them both.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Taz, posted 01-15-2012 9:07 PM Taz has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 172 of 341 (648490)
01-16-2012 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Butterflytyrant
01-15-2012 4:59 PM


Butterflytyrant asks:

quote:
In your opinion, what would be the top 3 to 5 arguments to put on the table to support the position that the flood of Noah is impossible?

There seem to be lots and lots of arguments, I am really just interested in researching a few in depth.

I am particularly interested in the ones that discuss the earth heating to the point that it would kill everything.


Well, you've seen the ones about documentary evidence, fossil records, etc. Here are a couple more:

It's topologically impossible. 97% of all water on earth is in the ocean and yet, we still have dry land. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood it. If there were, it would already be flooded. It doesn't matter how little above sea level the highest point above sea level is. The fact that it is above sea level means there isn't enough water to flood it for if there were, it would be below sea level. The physical existence of dry land means there isn't enough water to flood the planet.

If the claim that the water was stored in the "vapor canopy" is brought forward, point out that in order to store enough water as vapor would require the atmosphere to be heated to well over 900° C in order to keep the water in a gaseous state and not precipitate out. The surface of the planet would be sterilized.

If the claim that the "fountains of the deep" is brought forward, point out that in order to bring that much water from underground to the surface, the kinetic energy of all that water rushing forward will superheat it and again, the surface of the planet would be sterilized.

If the claim that the topological features of the earth were altered during the flood, that the continents split apart and the mountains rose up because of the flood, point out that the biblical story puts all that happening in less than a year. The kinetic energy required to split the continents and raise the mountains would superheat the crust, liquifying it, and the surface of the planet would be sterilized.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-15-2012 4:59 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2012 6:50 PM Rrhain has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 173 of 341 (648495)
01-16-2012 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Taz
01-15-2012 9:07 PM


Polyamory, although this is a general term that would describe a large number of other possible relationship configurations as well.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Taz, posted 01-15-2012 9:07 PM Taz has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 341 (648593)
01-16-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rrhain
01-16-2012 4:25 AM


Re: Explanation Of Global Flood
Rrhain writes:

Butterflytyrant asks:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion, what would be the top 3 to 5 arguments to put on the table to support the position that the flood of Noah is impossible?
There seem to be lots and lots of arguments, I am really just interested in researching a few in depth.

I am particularly interested in the ones that discuss the earth heating to the point that it would kill everything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you've seen the ones about documentary evidence, fossil records, etc. Here are a couple more:

It's topologically impossible. 97% of all water on earth is in the ocean and yet, we still have dry land. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood it. If there were, it would already be flooded. It doesn't matter how little above sea level the highest point above sea level is. The fact that it is above sea level means there isn't enough water to flood it for if there were, it would be below sea level. The physical existence of dry land means there isn't enough water to flood the planet.

If the claim that the water was stored in the "vapor canopy" is brought forward, point out that in order to store enough water as vapor would require the atmosphere to be heated to well over 900° C in order to keep the water in a gaseous state and not precipitate out. The surface of the planet would be sterilized.

If the claim that the "fountains of the deep" is brought forward, point out that in order to bring that much water from underground to the surface, the kinetic energy of all that water rushing forward will superheat it and again, the surface of the planet would be sterilized.

If the claim that the topological features of the earth were altered during the flood, that the continents split apart and the mountains rose up because of the flood, point out that the biblical story puts all that happening in less than a year. The kinetic energy required to split the continents and raise the mountains would superheat the crust, liquifying it, and the surface of the planet would be sterilized.

Rrhain, you've totally ignored what has been debated back when I was allowed in the science fora where I addressed all of this.

I explained the Biblical explanation of where the water went so as not to flood the entire earth.

To begin with there was a whole lot of water on the planet's surface post flood than pre-flood, most of it being in the atmosphere and sub-terrain. The Bible says that much of the watering of the earth's surface came from mist and fountains, i.e springs emerging from the earth's surface.

This would have a significant cooling effect on the surface of the earth and earth's atmosphere. much of it would evaporate and fall as dew, etc..

I've pointed out in those debates that as the atmosphere warms, heat effects a higher and less dense atmosphere which would limit and stabilize the temperature on the planet.

The canopy would allow for relatively even global temperature, explaining for observed tropical living things in the regions nearer to the poles etc.

It is unknown what effected the climate change which caused the condensing of the atmosphere significantly enough to suddenly flood the earth.

In Psalms 104 we learn that the flood caused a tectonic rising of the mountains and sinking of the valleys, i.e. "the valleys sank and the mountains rose". This implies a significantly smoother planet surface with small oceans and hills nothing as tall as our mountains.

The breaking up of the fountains and subterranean water along with the raining down of much of the atmosphere would work to sink the valleys and forcing up of the hills etc, effecting the higher mountains, etc.

It is known that the ocean crusts are an average of three or so miles thick whereas the continental crust has an average thickness of twenty miles or so.

The Biblical explanation for this would be the break-up of the subterranean water, coupled with the weight of the falling atmospheric water. The bottom of the subterranean lakes would become part and parcel of the ocean crusts. The whole event would set off a significant amount of volcanic activity globally, thus adding to the uplift and creation of mountains, etc.

These are some examples of where the water came from and ended up.

Both camps, yours and mine would agree that there has, in the past been significant meteor activity which could have (I say could have) effected the tilt and/or orbit of planet earth, so as to set off the global flood.

Corroborating all of the above would imply a whole lot less water needful to flood the entire planet than had the high mountains existed before the flood. As well, it would answer you question as to where all of the wheres and why-fores of what caused the flood, where the water came from and where it ended up.

The only thing Jehovah would have need to do was to set the timing of the meteor strike or what ever natural phenomena happened to be to coincide with the depravity of his once perfect idolatrous, promiscuous and godless people.

Prophets tell us that our end times generation will become similarly corrupt and godless precluding the prophesied day of God's wrath. Thus the observable fulfillment of end-time prophecies as per the ancient prophets.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 01-16-2012 4:25 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2012 7:46 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 176 by Coragyps, posted 01-16-2012 9:19 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2012 5:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 341 (648599)
01-16-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Buzsaw
01-16-2012 6:50 PM


Re: Explanation Of Global Flood
It is unknown what effected the climate change which caused the condensing of the atmosphere significantly enough to suddenly flood the earth.

Buz, it's "unknown" because it didn't happen. There was never any global flood and you've never at any time been able to substantiate that there was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2012 6:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 176 of 341 (648607)
01-16-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Buzsaw
01-16-2012 6:50 PM


Re: Explanation Of Global Flood
To begin with there was a whole lot of water on the planet's surface post flood than pre-flood, most of it being in the atmosphere and sub-terrain.

How much in the atmosphere, Buz? You mention "the weight of the falling water." If there were only 100 inches of precipitable water in young Noah's sky, instead of the inch we have now, how warm would the atmosphere have necessarily been to keep it there as vapor? As you have recently shown that you have no inkling what "superheated steam" even means, I will wager that you can't even guess.

100 inches isn't even six cubits, Buz. Not much weight......


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2012 6:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 177 of 341 (648641)
01-17-2012 9:18 AM


Moderator Request
Hi guys,

This thread is not for debate, hence the thread title: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate.

If you'd like to discuss issues in depth could you find an appropriate thread, or propose a new one over at Proposed New Topics?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 178 of 341 (649173)
01-21-2012 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Buzsaw
01-16-2012 6:50 PM


Hi Rrhain - I hid the text of your message, you can still view that text by clicking peek. Perhaps you can find a thread in Free For All to discuss the flood with Buzsaw. --Admin

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
Rrhain, you've totally ignored what has been debated back when I was allowed in the science fora where I addressed all of this.

I can't respond to posts I haven't seen. It isn't "ignoring" when I haven't read it.

quote:
To begin with there was a whole lot of water on the planet's surface post flood than pre-flood

Um, you do understandt that this is the definition of a "flood," yes? The whole point of a "flood" is that there is more water than there normally is.

quote:
most of it being in the atmosphere and sub-terrain.

What part of "super-heating" are you having trouble with? In order to store all that water in the atmosphere would require the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere to exceed that of Venus. The planet would be sterilized. To have all that water burst forth from the ground would liquify the crust from the heat and again, the planet would be sterilized.

quote:
This would have a significant cooling effect on the surface of the earth and earth's atmosphere.

Incorrect. It would have a significant heating effect.

quote:
much of it would evaporate and fall as dew, etc..

If it evaporates, it goes back into the atmosphere which is already super-saturated.

A simple calculation shows that it requires on the order of 10^9 cubic miles of additional water in order to flood the earth due to the fact that Mt. Everest is approximately five miles above sea level. Where is this water? It isn't in the atmosphere. If all the water in the atmosphere were to precipitate out, we'd only get about an inch of water globally instead of the five mile depth we need and on top of that, it would immediately rush into the ocean and not last for a year.

quote:
I've pointed out in those debates that as the atmosphere warms, heat effects a higher and less dense atmosphere

Incorrect. It has a tighter, more dense atmosphere. It's the only way to keep the water in suspension. If it were to cool or thin, it would immediately precipitate out.

quote:
It is unknown what effected the climate change which caused the condensing of the atmosphere significantly enough to suddenly flood the earth.

Given that we know the fluid dynamics (including the thermodynamics) that would be required to suspend such water in an atmosphere, this is incorrect. We know that it never happened.

quote:
In Psalms 104 we learn that the flood caused a tectonic rising of the mountains and sinking of the valleys

The kinetic energy of which would superheat the crust, liquifying it, and sterilizing the planet.

quote:
These are some examples of where the water came from and ended up.

None of which are physically possible. Ergo, they didn't happen.

quote:
Both camps, yours and mine would agree that there has, in the past been significant meteor activity which could have (I say could have) effected the tilt and/or orbit of planet earth

Incorrect. There is no evidence of such beyond the creation of the moon which was such a massive collision that had there been any life, it would have been sterilized in the impact since it was an object approximately the size of Mars that struck the Earth. Life post-dates the formation of the moon, so that had nothing to do with it.

Edited by Admin, : Hide lengthy answer in a short answer thread.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2012 6:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 179 of 341 (649232)
01-21-2012 4:15 PM


What to do?
So, my wife is on a night shift so I can put in some Xbox time but, what should I play?

I've narrowed it down to Ultimate MvC 3 or Dark Souls.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Theodoric, posted 01-21-2012 4:20 PM Larni has responded
 Message 186 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2012 8:09 PM Larni has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6897
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 180 of 341 (649234)
01-21-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Larni
01-21-2012 4:15 PM


Re: What to do?
Skyrim

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Larni, posted 01-21-2012 4:15 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Larni, posted 01-21-2012 4:23 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019