Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2336 of 2370 (881699)
08-27-2020 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2310 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:36 PM

Re: Definitions
A collision between asteroid and earth would have 50% (?) chance to push the earth away from the sun.
In addition to this, you also have proposed an asteroid the size of a mountain hitting the earth, saying that it would be the same as the Himalayas suddenly collapsing. You have proposed this in support of the Story of Noah's Flood. That is clearly incorrect as we can demonstrate through simple physics, namely linear momentum and the law of conservation of linear momentum.
Linear momentum = mass_of_the_body × velocity_of_the_body = mv
When two bodies collide, the linear momentum of the new system is equal to the sum of the bodies' momentums. Keep in mind that velocity is a vector which means that it has direction as well as magnitude (AKA speed) -- I hope that that does not confuse you too much.
OK, let's establish some reasonable values. I'll use metric units because they just make far more sense and are easier to work with. I will also use computer E-notation instead of regular scientific notation (eg, 2.34E-2 instead of 2.34×10-2) since you have demonstrated that you are familiar with it and also so you won't completely screw up copying the text yet again.
  • Mass of the earth: 5.97237E24 kg
  • Orbital speed of the earth: 30 km/sec = 67,000 miles per hour
  • Mass of Ceres, the largest asteroid: 9.3835E20 kg (0.00016 Earths)
  • Mass of Mt. Everest (estimated): 810 trillion kg = 8.1E14 kg
  • Mass of an average mountain (est): 2.36E14 kg
  • Speed of an asteroid hitting the earth (rounding up): 20 km/sec (72,000 km/hr, 44,738.7 mph)
  • Height of Mt. Everest: 8,848 m
  • Final speed of an object falling from 8,848 m: 416.4 m/sec (1,499 km/hr, 931 mph)
  • Average final speed of all parts of Mt Everest falling unimpeded: 208.2 m/sec (749.5 km/hr, 465.5 mph)
  • Maximum Linear Momentum of Mt Everest falling to sea level: 1.686E17
  • Linear momentum of Ceres upon earth impact: 1.8767E19
  • Linear momentum of a mountain-size asteroid upon earth impact: 4.9E16
  • Linear momentum of an Everest-size asteroid upon earth impact: 1.6E19
A few comments on that list:
  1. Since linear momentum is calculated by multiplying kilograms by meters/second, its units are kg m/s. Therefore, when you divide linear momentum by mass in kilograms, you get a velocity in meters per second.
  2. In order to see what effect such collisions would have on the earth (ie, how much they would accelerate the earth), I chose the earth as our frame of reference (literally the very first thing they teach in physics class). That gives the earth a velocity of zero and hence zero momentum. As a result, the earth will take on the full momentum of the impacting body. The new velocity of the earth would be the impacting body's momentum divided by the earth's mass and hence will be in meters per second.
  3. Ceres was chosen as the example asteroid because it is the most massive asteroid out there. That means that any other asteroid hitting the earth would have less impact. Therefore, using Ceres would give us an upper bound for the effect on the earth (a very common engineering practice).
  4. Mt Everest was chosen as the example collapsing mountain because, as the largest mountain on earth, it would give us an upper bound on such an event; any other mountain collapsing would have less impact. I also made a number of assumptions to push that upper bound even higher: equal distribution of mass throughout the mountain's height instead of it being concentrated towards the base as it actually is, assuming that it all fall down to sea level instead of to a more realistic somewhat higher elevation, that all particles in the mountain being free to fall unimpeded by neighboring particles thus allowing all parts of the mountain to reach maximum speed.
  5. In comparing the linear momentum of Mt Everest collapsing with the linear momentum of a Mt Everest-size asteroid hitting the earth, we find the asteroid's linear momentum to be nearly 100 times greater (94.899). Exactly as I had told you repeatedly while you continued to assert that their effects would be the same. You stubbornly refused to realize the role of kinetic energy such that it appears that you were completely unaware of its existence.
OK, now to calculate the effects that impacts with those linear momentums would have in changing the earth's velocity:
  • Due to Mt Everest falling to sea level: 2.823E-8 m/sec = 6.3E-8 mph
  • Due to impact by an Everest-size asteroid: 2.679E-6 m/sec = 5.99E-6 mph
  • Due to impact by a mountain-size asteroid: 1.0E-24 m/sec = 2.247E-24 mph
  • Due to impact by Ceres: 3.1423E-6 m/sec = 7.029E-6 mph
Compared to the earth's orbital speed of 30,000 m/sec, the effects that such impacts would have on changing the earth's orbital speed are so miniscule that they just barely hang onto the right side of a calculator display. Also remember that these figures are upper bounds, so the actual values that would actually happen will be far less.
IOW, they have virtually no effect on the earth's orbit.
Juvenissun, learn something about science! Apply what you have learned to test your own ideas first! That way you can spot the real stinkers yourself so that you can avoid using them.
Instead, all you are doing with your bone-headed baseless claims is to destroy any credibility that you could possibly have as well as exposing how horrifically bad your false religion and silly phony god are (again, not to be confused with actual Christianity).
So do yourself a favor and learn something!
Edited by dwise1, : reminder that these are upper bounds

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2310 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:36 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2341 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 5:15 PM dwise1 has replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2343 of 2370 (881710)
08-27-2020 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2341 by Juvenissun
08-27-2020 5:15 PM

Re: Definitions
Well, so you are reverting to being a f*cking idiot by ignoring an honest assessment of your baseless assertions, showing them to be pure crap. You have no other recourse but to completely ignore the plain truth. Very telling, that.
Again, you do not have to write so much.
Yes, I do, because I am imparting information which requires a certain degree of completeness.
Of course, that is completely different from what you are doing, which is to advance your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) through deceptive means while engaging in frantic hand-waving meant to distract us from the fact that everything you present is pure crap.
You seek to generate confusion and lies while I seek clarity and truth.
What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90 angle?
Typical dishonest creationist trickery. You ask a question and then when you get the answer, you ignore it and throw out another question. You dishonest creationists are truly sickening.
Why should we constantly do your homework for you? Especially when all you do in response is to shit all over everything.
Do your own homework! Do the math yourself! Show us your results, including the values that you used in the calculations, the formulae you used, etc. Just as you would in doing homework in a science class, though I very much doubt that your shadow has ever darkened the doorway of any science classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2341 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 5:15 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2344 of 2370 (881712)
08-27-2020 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2304 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:04 PM

Re: Time scales
I don't think there is any fusion reaction at the center of the earth.
Of course there isn't. Why are you talking about fusion, introducing the question of whether there's fusion in the earth's core? Which there isn't. Rather, there is FISSION happening, but that is very different from fusion even though both involve the loss of mass through the conversion of matter to energy. Or don't you know that they are different? It is so difficult to guess which extremely basic and simple facts are completely beyond your ability to comprehend.
Just to clear up your attempt to misquote me (typical filthy creationist!), here is what I wrote in Message 2301 which you are misrepresenting (the word "fission" emphasized here in yellow):
DWise1 writes:
First, your idea that the earth is gaining mass is incorrect as we already established in Message 2280 so then you have no excuse for not knowing better. While the earth is gaining about 40,000 tonnes of mass per year through meteoric infall, it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space. That results in a net loss of earth mass of 10,000 tonnes per year.
My source on that is this BBC article, Who, What, Why: Is the Earth getting lighter?. Since you will never read it for fear of learning something (your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) does insist that you preserve your ignorance), here are some pertinent excerpts from it:
By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth, says Dr Smith.
. . .
Nasa has calculated that the Earth is gaining energy due to rising temperatures. Dr Smith and his colleague Mr Ansell estimate this added energy increases the mass of Earth by a tiny amount - 160 tonnes.
This means that in total between 40,000 and 41,000 tonnes is being added to the mass of the planet each year.
But overall, Dr Smith has calculated that the Earth - including the sea and the atmosphere - is losing mass. He points to a handful of reasons.
For instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass.
But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.
But there is something else that is making the planet lose mass. Gases such as hydrogen are so light, they are escaping from the atmosphere.
"Physicists have shown that the Earth is losing about three kilograms of hydrogen gas every second. It's about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen that the planet is losing every year.
"The other very light gas this is happening to is helium and there is much less of that around, so it's about 1,600 tonnes a year of helium that we lose."
So taking into account the gains and the losses, Dr Smith reckons the Earth is getting about 50,000 tonnes lighter a year, which is just less than half the gross weight of the Costa Concordia, the Italian cruise liner, that ran aground recently.
Clearly, compared to the immense size of the world, this is a tiny difference, a loss of just 0.000000000000001%.
So then the earth is losing mass, not "gaining" it as you keep asserting falsely.
And that mass loss in the earth's core is obviously due to FISSION (not fusion as you falsely accuse me of having stated).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2304 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:04 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2350 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 10:11 PM dwise1 has replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2346 of 2370 (881716)
08-27-2020 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2305 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:16 PM

Re: Definitions
The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times.
Within human history? That's when you are claiming that it happened! So then just exactly when within human history was that? Moons? Planets? What moons and planets? Name them and when they had hit the earth. Many many times? Really? Name just one such event within human history since that is when you have been repeatedly claiming that it happened.
And as for what an asteroid hit would have done to the earth's orbit, I've already shown you conclusively and beyond the shadow of a doubt in my Message 2336 that that effect would be so minimal as to have virtually no effect on the earth's orbit.
Also, you took that from my recalling another clueless creationist having tried to argue that because ancient calendars had years 360 days long, then that meant that the length of the year had changed. Rather, those ancient calendars had breaks of a few days between each calendar, usually involving festivals, that would sync the next calendar up again with the seasons. Here again is what I wrote in Message 2302 and which you have quote-mined:
DWise1 writes:
Do you remember several months ago how somebody (creation?) tried to argue that the year used to literally be 360 days long and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit? He based it on how so many ancient calendars had 360 days. What he forgot was that those calendars also had intercalary days added at the end of the official year, usually in the form of a festival, to make up the difference and so the seasons would work out right. It turns out that they were really in love with the number 360 for its unique mathematical properties so they chose it for their calendars despite having to tweak it. Then Roman politicians politicized those intercalary days, declaring more of them to keep their people in power longer or fewer to get their opponents out of office sooner. So Julius Caesar established the Julian Calendar in 46 BCE, of which the later Gregorian Calendar is a refinement.
At no point was the actual physical year literally 360 days long, though it will be some time in the future.
That's right, they even have a special term for days that are stuck in between calendars or within calendars: intercalary days.
Why 360? Because ancient peoples loved that special number. It's evenly divisible by so many numbers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, and 180. We still love that number since we use it to divide the circle into 360 degrees. They also loved the number 60, a factor of 360, which is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. We still love it such that we use base-60 (sexagesimal) in our system of time and angle measurement -- plus the numbers 12 and 24, factors of 360, are part of our timekeeping system.
So we do know the true story of ancient calendars having 360 days and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of your made-up bullshit nonsense.
Look at the geologic recent, how much orbit shift took place by the hit that killed dinosaurs 60 m.y. ago? We do not know because we do not know the direction of hit.
Like I said, I already crunched the numbers on that scenario in Message 2336 and found that the effect of an asteroid hit on the earth's orbit would be so minimal as to have virtually no effect.
Here are the actual numbers. I choose a frame of reference that sets the x-axis in the direction of the earth's original motion, such that its direction is zero degrees -- therefore the earth's original vector is (30,000:0) in meters per second. The maximum effect that an asteroid hit could have in changing the orbit would be if it hit at right angles, therefore at an angle of 90 degrees. Furthermore, I choose from Message 2336 the asteroid hit with the most effect, Ceres whose momentum would result in a velocity vector of (0:3.1423E-6) in m/sec.
Adding those two vectors we get the resultant vector, (30,000:3.1423E-6), would be 0.0113 seconds of arc with a magnitude of 30,000 meters/sec -- ie, virtually no effect at all.
A careful study on the rate change of some key geological processes may reveal something about it.
You hypocrite! You are the one opposing any kind of study of those rates, let alone a careful study.
You dishonest hypocritical creationists are truly disgusting!
Edited by dwise1, : more explicitly specifying the velocity vectors in an asteroid hit
also I had mistakenly used the mph speed for the Ceres vector, not the m/s
Edited by dwise1, : Added the units to the magnitude of the resultant vector
Edited by dwise1, : Should be 0.0113 seconds of arc, not 2.16E-5. Still insignificant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2305 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:16 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2349 of 2370 (881721)
08-27-2020 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2348 by jar
08-27-2020 9:32 PM

Re: Definitions
Those were the moons and planets that hit the earth but just like the Biblical Floods no one noticed.
Sounds like that recurring theme in the revived Doctor Who in which cataclysmic events happen world-wide (eg, alien invasions) but then afterwards nobody remembers any of it. They've even hung a lantern on it a few times with the Doctor asking passers-by about those past events.
This clip explains hanging a lantern at about 0:50:
Like what Juvenissun and far too many other creationists do, except they keep forgetting the lantern.
Edited by dwise1, : like what Juvenissun does

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2348 by jar, posted 08-27-2020 9:32 PM jar has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2354 of 2370 (881727)
08-27-2020 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2350 by Juvenissun
08-27-2020 10:11 PM

Re: Time scales
So you just had to misquote me, didn't you? Filthy dishonest creationist!
You misquoted:
or instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass.
But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.
it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions)
The first quote is from the BBC article I cited and quoted from.
The second you lifted out of context to make it appear that I was saying something entirely different than I actually did say. That makes you a damned liar!
What I had actually written (the omitted parts in yellow):
DWise1 writes:
... it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space.
So while you lied by misrepresenting me as attributing 50,000 tonnes of mass loss to fission reactions alone, what I had actually written was that the primary loss of mass from the earth is from hydrogen and helium escaping from the atmosphere. You lying piece of shit!
Also, what I had written was a repost from Message 2301 for the purpose of exposing your other lie about me that I was talking about a fusion reaction in the earth's core. I did not such thing, but rather I was talking about fission all along.
As it turns out, I was using a different source in Message 2301 which gave the same figures. However, I had misread the 50,000 tonnes loss as being the mass loss from the atmosphere and from the core. In this source from the BBC, they give the 50,000 tonnes as the net mass loss when you subtract the mass gain from the mass loss.
Either way, it still works out that the earth experiences a net loss of mass instead of the mass gain that you repeatedly and falsely claim.
You still have nothing to say about that? Except to lie about what others say. Typical creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2350 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 10:11 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2358 of 2370 (881747)
08-28-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2341 by Juvenissun
08-27-2020 5:15 PM

Re: Definitions
While you are sitting in the corner during your time-out, this would be a good time for you to engage in some self-examination and contemplation over what had landed you here. Not that I can imagine you ever doing that.
Repeatedly and with sickening regularity, you make blatantly false claims which you refuse to support in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, you expect us to do all your work for you and then, when we do that, you ignore our answers and just repeat that stupid cycle yet again. If you think that our harsh judgement of you is unjustified, you are very seriously dead wrong.
Obviously, you need to reform your misconduct into something more constructive, socially acceptable, and conducive to discussion. Instead, your persistent conduct is that of typical creationists who are capable of nothing more than regurgitating false "creation science" claims with absolutely no comprehension of what they are spouting. As a result, when we attempt to engage them in a discussion of their claims they try to hide their abject ignorance of their own claims through many dishonest polemic tactics all designed to avoid discussion, the same ones that you yourself use persistently. If you actually had any clue what you were talking about, you should have no reason to always resort to such polemic tricks.
At that other forum, you claim to be a geologist. You have hinted here that you hold a doctorate in that field and that you have taught the subject. It is abundantly clear from your persistent actions that none of that is true. And if you had actually taught classes in that or any scientific subject, how would you treat a student who did as you do, make wild assertions that he then refuses to support with anything but frantic hand-waving and proclaiming himself to possess an intellect far superior to your own? Yeah, you would also give that idiot the bum's rush out the door. And you have the gall to expect different treatment?
I just looked at the graduation requirements for a BS Geology from a local state university. 30 semester units are required from related fields, such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, so your demonstrated abject ignorance of such subjects (especially mathematics and physics) exposes your fraud. Even if a student were to avoid the physics classes, one of the required major courses is geophysics ("Physics for Stoners" akin to "Physics for Poets"?), so there should be absolutely no excuse for a geologist to demonstrate such abject ignorance of physics as you present here.
Now, there is a history of creationists claiming credentials such as doctorates but which they did not earn but rather had either purchased from a degree mill or received as an honorary degree.
For example, convicted fraud Kent Hovind bought a "PhD" in Religious Studies so he calls himself "Dr. Dino" (which was also the domain name of his previous website before his decade-long stint in federal prison) and which he used to deceive his followers into thinking that he must be a scientist (he would just stress the "Dr", not what it was supposed to have been in). He even went so far as to force the phone company to list him in the phone book as "Dr. Hovind".
Another example is Harold Slusher who in the early days of "creation science" had strong ties with the ICR and had written a lot of early "creation science" materials (eg, the ubiquitous appendix listing uniformitarian estimates showing young earth ages, including his bogus moon dust claim in which he misquoted his source and violated basic mathematical principles in order to inflate his results by a factor of 10,000 (ie, his expected "284 foot thick" layer of meteoric dust on the moon actually turns out to be 1/3-inch thick, which is pretty much what we actually found). He appears to have actually earned an MS Science degree, but he also received a couple honorary degrees. When he joined the Physics Dept of the University of Texas at El Paso, he was at first listed as "Dr. Slusher", for which he had clearly misrepresented his honorary degrees to the university. Then mysteriously the faculty list for that department went missing, but finally it reappeared and Slusher was still there but no longer listed as "Dr." I just now went back to their site and Harold Slusher is no longer listed as faculty or staff, so he must have since retired and/or moved on. BTW, over the years I have received a number of emails from his students all complaining about him (and not in a good way).
So, I don't know what degree mill you bought your degree from.
What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90 angle?
As I've already told you, you need to start doing your own homework. And then present your findings to us showing your work. I've done it at least a few times here already, whereas you have never even begun to do the same.
And this brings us back to that very basic question and problem which you have consistently ignored: If you require certain effects (eg, the length of the year having changed drastically to account for the reported extreme longevity of the Patriarchs), then you must first determine how much of that change is required. Then and only then can you even begin to figure out what mechanisms could produce those required effects, if any.
OK, I'm thinking like an engineer here, but then I am a retired engineer (albeit a software engineer, which other engineers think isn't real engineering, much as how physicists and other real scientists think that geology isn't a real science -- refer to Sheldon Cooper's statements about geology, now that you have all this free time on your hands). A basic software design approach is to first define the outputs that you need, then define the inputs that you would need, and finally the data processing that would be required to convert those inputs into those required outputs.
Whenever you wish to endeavor to design a new product, the very first step you absolutely must take is to specify exactly what that product shall (an extremely special and all-powerful word in any and all specifications) do. You have never ever provided us with that absolutely essential specification.
You have consistently and persistently refused to define what your bizarre scenarios would require. You couldn't even figure out on your own how many times greater 950 years would be than 120 years. That is simple division! And yet performing simple division is completely beyond your extremely limited mental capacity? And you want to claim to have an advanced degree in a science? Really?
In Message 2336 I have presented you with the actual results of your "asteroid hits and mountain range collapses" (paraphrased scare quotes). We know all too well how insignificantly those would affect the earth's orbit.
Now you demand for me to calculate this: "What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90 angle?" OK, you unthinkingly reject absolutely everything that I or the rest of the forum membership present to you. At the same time you persistently refuse to seek any answers yourself. That is actually understandable, as presented by Wakefield when trying in vain to work with Robert Gentry:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
BTW, Gentry's "basement Genesis" rock from which he had extracted his polonium halo samples turned out to be in igneous intrusions into metamorphic rock. If you actually had any background in geology, you would understand that, but I doubt that you will.
In another Wakefield article on that subject which I do not have access to right now, that was worded in this manner (ie, I am very strongly paraphrasing here):
When a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve that mystery.
When a creationist/religionist/God-of-the-Gaps-ist sees a mystery that he identifies as "God", he wants to keep it a mystery.
At all costs, because the creationists' god can only be supported and defended through lies and deception.
So then, what are the results we should expect from your own calculations for that problem that you presented me with?
And in addition, since all such massively astronomical events that you now assert and require (ie, "The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times.") must have occurred within human history. That is directly and verbatim from your Message 2305. And the only reason that you are invoking such events are is to invoke sudden and drastic astronomical changes (ie, to the earth's orbit) within human history! OK, so tell us everything about those "asteroids, moons, planets" that had hit the earth "many many times." Give me a such event, Vasili. Just one! That's all we need. Oh! You cannot? ‘! (sorry, I did try to avoid switching to thinking in Russian there; that reference to "The Hunt for Red October" undid me -- Interesting!)
You want to know what the effect would be of: "What if the collision was between a moon-size or larger body and the earth? And they hit at an angle? Even at a 90 angle?" So figure it out for yourself! One definition of a PhD I recently heard is that its real measure is for your ability to do inhumanly long hours of incredibly tedious work. And yet you, who wants to claim a PhD, cannot even do such simple calculations yourself, let along simple division?
Just what the hell is wrong with you?
You have about three days to formulate your response. I am not holding my breath, having had to deal with you f*cking creationists since 1981.
OK, you have a few days of soul-searching (not that you would ever find one) to think about what you are doing.
Your move.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2341 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 5:15 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2359 of 2370 (881767)
08-29-2020 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2305 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:16 PM

Re: Definitions
Look at the geologic recent, how much orbit shift took place by the hit that killed dinosaurs 60 m.y. ago?
I know that I have already shown you that your hand-waving ravings are nonsense that do not come anywhere close to supporting what your false assertions would require. But since I just got more information on that geologic event and the asteroid, the Chicxulub impactor, I felt that we should use the information in that article to run through this evolution again, even if only for sh*ts and giggles.
Here are the salient facts that we will work with:
  • We are using the MKS system from physics: meter-kilogram-second
  • I am using computer program notation for scientific notation which is E to represent × 10; eg, 2.34E-2 means 2.3410-2.
  • Linear momentum = × = mv
  • Velocity is a vector which means that it has direction and magnitude. You can specify the value of a vector either with polar coordinates (radius and angle) or with its Cartesian components (x,y).
  • Again, I'll assume the earth to be our frame of reference, so its momentum will be zero and the magnitude of the resultant vector from the collision will be the change in the earth's velocity due to that impact. The direction of the earth's motion along its orbit will be our +x axis. Also, I'll assume an impact angle of 90; ie, in the direction of the +y axis, which should impart the most change in the earth's orbit.
  • Mass of the earth: 5.97237E+24 kg
  • Orbital speed of the earth: 30 km/sec = 30,000 m/sec
  • Maximum estimated mass of Chicxulub impactor: 4.6E+17 kg
  • Estimated speed of impact: 20 km/sec = 20,000 m/sec
  • Calculated linear momentum of Chicxulub impactor: 9.2E+21 kg m/sec
  • Earth's additional velocity vector in x,y-components due to conservation of linear momentum: (0 mps, 1.54E-3 mps)
  • Adding the vectors: (30000,0) + (0,1.54E-3) = (30000,1.54E-3) m/sec. In polar coordinates, that translates to 30,000 mps at 5.54 seconds of arc.
Still too insignificant to have any meaningful effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2305 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:16 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2362 of 2370 (882194)
09-15-2020 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2360 by mike the wiz
09-14-2020 6:52 PM

Wow, so much empty verbiage, so little time.
It's like trying to discuss anything with a Trumpian "Republican" troll. They immediately start spewing a constant fire-hose stream of pure BS that no rational person could possibly respond to in real time. We also know it as the "Gish Gallop".
You say:
(nitpicking one or two examples then complaining, won't change the overall theme here which is that evolution is fiction.)
Rather, pointing out that some of your "examples" are pure BS is an indication that all your other "examples" are also pure BS.
There is also C14 in diamonds ...
Really? Do you have any clue at all what radiocarbon dating is or how it works? Any clue at all? It really is not at all complicated. So how could you be so completely stupid about it? Except that that is what your "creation science" requires of you. Do please respond directly to this one so I can explain to you how the cow ate the cabbage (one of my father's Texanisms meaning explaining how things actually work).
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Oh! A quote! A direct quote! Yet completely devoid of any actual citation. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU QUOTING? And where the frak is your bibliography? Oh, yeah, right. This is just yet another example of lying creationist quote-minining, you f*cking lying creationist! Why do you believe that your god can only be served through lying and deceiving? Obviously you know nothing about Christian doctrine, since you cannot immediately identify the one and only Christian deity who is served by lies and deception (HINT: Lucifer).
Now, back around 1990 I personally did find an article in either Nature or Science about "green fossils". I'm sure I have a photocopy of it somewhere in my boxes of files, but I cannot lay my hands on it immediately.
The thing about "green fossils" is that they still contain DNA. Also, this article dealt with magnolia leaves instead of sycamore. What they found was that morphologically all the samples were identical, but genetically they were quite different. Indeed, the genetic differences provided enough data that the researchers were able to create a phylogenetic tree of descent for those trees.
The rest of your "little list" consists of nothing other than morphological sameness that says nothing at all about genetic differences (which admittedly would be very difficult). Oh! Gee! Some of that "soft tissue in various dino bones" should provide us with exactly that kind of DNA data! Any one? Any one? Bueller? Bueller? Any one? Why do I hear nothing except for crickets?
Of course, none of that explains why you would ever think that your "little list" should have any validity at all. What is your gross misunderstanding of evolution that would lead you to think that your "little list" should be any kind of a problem for science? After many decades, I have yet to see any such explanation from any creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2360 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2020 6:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 2369 of 2370 (886889)
06-14-2021 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2361 by PaulK
09-15-2020 2:00 AM

Mikey's False C14 Dating Claim

Mike repeated/alluded to the creationist claim that C14 dating is false because traces of C14 can be found in obviously very old things like coal seams and diamonds.
That claim is blatantly false because radiocarbon dating is based on atmospheric C14, not C14 inside the earth's crust which is produced by other means (eg, nearby radiation sources). Trace amounts of C14 in coal and diamonds, etc, have absolutely nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
And if mike disagrees, then he can always explain why he thinks that his claim is true. Nothing and nobody are keeping him from doing that.
To start with, we fully acknowledge that mike-the-whizzer is a hit-and-run troller who engages in run-by copy-and-paste word-saladings. As Percy demonstrated in his Message 2 reply to Whizzer's latest word salad PNT, which he just pointed us to.
mike writes:
There is also C14 in diamonds ...
C14 is only found in trace amounts, ...
I also asked mike to explain what he was talking about and never got any answer. Not even any kind of direct statement of his implied claim. No actual direct claim, just a shady implication that something might be wrong without ever telling us what he thinks is wrong and why. IOW, typical dishonest creationist deception.
As always, since creationists refuse to ever tell us what they are talking about (not that any of them understand it themselves, but that's another story), we have to take what little they do say and try to reconstruct their argument for them.
It appears that their argument is that "evolutionists" say that, because of C14's short half-life (5,730 ± 40 years), any sample containing C14 will end up having none after about 50,000 years. And yet we find samples, such as coal and diamonds, which are much older and still have trace amounts of C14. Therefore they must actually be younger than 50,000, radiocarbon dating is false, the earth is young, and their entire intricate fundamentalist theology is proven to be absolutely true. Amen.

So many creationist claims are sketchy in both ways: 1) they are highly questionable if not outright dishonest, and 2) they lack details and any clear statement of the assumptions or reasoning behind the claim or even of the claim itself. Since they lack a clear statement of the claim, in order to respond we are forced to fill in all the blanks and gaps.
A number of times in the past, the creationist's response would be to complain that I was putting words in his mouth, to which I would respond by requesting that he explain what he was objecting to, why he was objecting to it, and also that he clearly describe and explain his own claim. The creationist response to that has always been to either try to change the subject or to run away.
So if mike wants to object that I just misrepresented his claim, then he needs to point out where I had done that, explain why he feels that it's a misrepresentation, and he must present his own claim completely and clearly. Which decades of bitter experience has taught me he will never do.
Of course, part of the reason for creationists not even trying to present their claims clearly and completely and avoiding any discussion of them is because they don't understand their own claims. All they are doing is mindlessly parroting what they have been told. For that matter, if they did actually understand their own claims, then they would know better than to present them in public where they are not able to control the venue and conditions as strictly as they need -- examples of a venue where they have strict control would be in a creationist debate, in a presentation at a church, in a creationist-run forum, anywhere that they can prevent any critics from speaking.
They are leaving out two very important issues:
  1. They do not understand what radiocarbon dating is based on, namely one particular way in which C14 is produced. And,
  2. That there are several ways in which C14 can be produced, but there is one and only one way which has any bearing on radiocarbon dating.
Basically, C14 is produced when a nitrogen nucleus (At.No. 7, At.Wt. 14) is hit by and absorbs a neutron which causes a proton to be expelled resulting in an isotope of carbon (normally 6/12), carbon-14 (6/14). There are other reactions that would produce C14, but this is given as the main one.
Basically, all you need is some radiation source (though lightning will also work) which are plentiful in the earth's crust and so will account for the on-going production of trace amounts of C14 in coal, diamonds, and the like. That explains what actually causes the "mysterious" appearance of C14 that the Whizz is talking about. And those sources of C14 have nothing whatsoever to do with radiocarbon dating.
Another source of radiation is cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. Now that is the source which radiocarbon dating is based on. And here is basically how radiocarbon dating works:
  1. Cosmic radiation impinges upon the earth's atmosphere and produces C14.
  2. Some C14 becomes incorporating in plant tissue in proportion to the proportion of C14 to C12. That process is called photosynthesis which results in the production of carbohydrates.
  3. Some animals eat plants for food. That results in the plants' C14 entering the animals' bodies and becoming incorporated there.
  4. Some animals eat other animals for food, which results in those prey animals' C14 becoming incorporated in the predators' bodies.
  5. When plants and animals die, they no longer incorporate "new carbon" into their bodies. Since no new C14 enters their tissues, the C14 that is already there decays over time. Measuring the remaining C14 versus the current levels of C14 is what radiocarbon dating is basically based on.
Note a few important points:
  • The only C14 that has any bearing on radiocarbon dating is atmospheric C14. The trace amounts found in coal and diamonds are not atmospheric C14 and hence have nothing to do with the dating method.
  • Because of basic biology, animals cannot obtain C14 from the atmosphere, but rather only plants can do that.
    Think about it (especially if you are a creationist lurker/visitor who is hearing this for the first time):
    • When we breathe, we take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. We do not take in carbon dioxide (and hence C14), but rather we expel it, so we do not get our C14 from the atmosphere.
    • However, through the process of photosynthesis plants do take in carbon dioxide (and hence C14) from the atmosphere. They use that carbon dioxide and water to produce carbohydrates and oxygen. Carbohydrates are not only sugars and starches, but also the cellulose which form the very structure of plants.
    • Because only plants can incorporate C14 from the atmosphere and animals cannot, animals get their C14 by eating the plants and non-herbivore animals get theirs by eating the herbivores or other predators whose food chain eventually works its way down to herbivores and hence eventually to plants. As we have already gone over.
  • When animals obtain their carbon from other sources which contain "old carbon" and in which most of their original C14 has already decayed away, then the radiocarbon dating method no longer applies to them. A prime example is the ocean.
    This creates what is referred to as the "reservoir effect"., of which that article says regarding the ocean:
    Creatures living at the ocean surface have the same 14C ratios as the water they live in, and as a result of the reduced 14C/12C ratio, the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 400 years. Organisms on land are in closer equilibrium with the atmosphere and have the same 14C/12C ratio as the atmosphere. These organisms contain about 1.3% of the carbon in the reservoir; sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land and are not shown in the diagram. Accumulated dead organic matter, of both plants and animals, exceeds the mass of the biosphere by a factor of nearly 3, and since this matter is no longer exchanging carbon with its environment, it has a 14C/12C ratio lower than that of the biosphere.
    Examples include:
    • Fresh water clams in streams fed by springs that run through limestone.
      Limestone consists of ancient shells and hence consists of "old carbon". The water flowing through that limestone dissolves it and the clams get their shell-building carbon, which is "old carbon", from the water.
      As a result, radiocarbon testing of those shells yield an anomalously old age. This is the basis for one of the first creationist claims I heard around 1970.
    • While seals are air-breathers, they do not get their C14 from the atmosphere (being animals, after all) but rather from their food as is the case for all animals. Their diet consists entirely of sea life which, as we have already seen, is somewhat isolated from the atmosphere and hence forms a carbon exchange reservoir as described in the quote above.
      Seals are thus affected by the reservoir effect and performing radiocarbon dating on them will be expected to produce anomalous results.
    Creationists frequently and regularly cite many cases of anomalous ages from applying a radiocarbon dating method on specimens subject to the reservoir effect. Misrepresenting those anomalous results as invalidating radiocarbon dating is yet another example of creationist dishonesty and deception.
In most cases, all it takes is basic knowledge of the subject matter to completely refute creationist claims. Something that mike and other creationists obviously do not have (or do have but they're lying).
Of course and as always, if mike disagrees and truly believes that his claim has any merit, then he is free to explain why he believes that. Nobody is keeping him from doing that. Nothing is keeping him from doing that -- except maybe his knowledge that his claim is completely false and deceptive, but that assumes that he has some integrity ("integrity" and "creationist" are two words that do not go together). Of course, mike will never do that.
Edited by dwise1, : added subtitle and final sentence

Edited by dwise1, : ABEs, plus added final paragraph

Edited by dwise1, : "then they would know better than to present them in public outside of conditions that they cannot control very strictly." in the second ABE doesn't read well. Corrected it.

Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2361 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2020 2:00 AM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024