Did the Flood really happen?

DUH!You show your math to try to get people to agree with your idea.Edited by ringo, : Fixed attribution.

quote:

---

You are talking about the details of the longevity model.

---

No, because you haven’t produced a model yet. Just another wildly implausible speculation.

quote:

---

Does that mean if your questions above could be dealt with, then the model becomes a possibility?

​

1. amount of change?
2. timing and duration of change?
3. effect to the life on the earth?

---

So long as all those answers are plausible possibilities given the evidence we have. And so long as you produce an actual model with the necessary details rather than just making wild guesses.Of course if you knew enough to do that you would never have suggested the idea in the first place.

quote:

---

The Mercury today is inhabitable. BUT, if put the earth there and a lot of the seawater evaporated into the atmosphere, plus if the earth rotated faster than the Mercury does, then the earth at that orbit may have a habitable environment.

---

No. Venus was a lot like the Earth. And - unless you want to propose another drastic change in orbit - the Earth would have been in the close orbit for practically all it’s existence. So, like Venus only worse.

quote:

---

Suppose the earth is moving away from the sun at a speed 3 miles per year, how would be the environment change from what it is today? It would have some difference.

---

Virtually none, because it’s so slow. The Earth is 584,000,000 miles from the Sun. . But you were talking about a sudden change of orbit from inside the orbit of Mercury - which is only 35,000,000 miles from the Sun - to the present orbit. So how suddenly does the Earth traverse more than 500,000,000 miles?You obviously haven’t thought this through.

show your work

Because your carefully worked out math should show whether even a great big honkin’ comet could alter the earth’s orbit enough to even measure, that’s why.

Of course you didn't, because above all you must avoid learning anything. Just like you refuse to even look at an article under discussion (Message 1), an article that you were demanding we explain to you while you absolutely refuse to read it let alone even look at it. You tried to weasel out by insisting that you would only speak with a geologist, but when a geologist did present himself to you (Message 2129), you ran away, "you ignorant weasel" (to quote directly from that cited message)!YEC charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind's claim was an example of what you are trying to do here. So now we have to explain to you what an example is and how it is used just so you can refuse to understand? Really? Are you really going to stoop so low with one of the most dishonest creationist tricks, selective stupidity? -- like selective blindness and selective amnesia where you cannot see nor remember any inconvenient fact, selective stupidity is where you cannot even begin to understand even the simplest of concepts, like what an example is; these afflictions can either be dishonest evasive tricks (which make them so dear to dishonest weasels like creationists and Russia-backed US Presidents) or signs of a far deeper and far more serious mental pathology.You are standing here making wild yet vague assertions and waving your hands all over the place in order to distract and confuse and deceive exactly like creationist charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind did with his solar-mass-loss claim where he made wild yet (deliberately) vague assertions and waving his hands all over the place in order to distract and confuse and deceive -- he even has gone so far as to insist that his audience never try to do the simple math to test his claim. So, you are conducting yourself in the exact same deliberately dishonest and deceptive manner as that other YEC charlatan (though he has one-upped you by also being a convicted fraud). The purpose of that example is to demonstrate what happens when such frauds as the one that you are prosecuting are investigated and tested. That example is a warning that you need to test your assumptions for whether they are even worth using -- if they cannot possibly produce results of the magnitude that you need, then you need to look elsewhere or else reevaluate what you are trying to do.So what is the purpose of going through what Kent Hovind did with his solar-mass-loss claim? So that you can learn to not make the same mistake. Not that you are capable of learning. OK, so what are the values you are working towards? The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem. So far, you have been refusing to do so.
Vagueness and hand waving do nothing to define anything, let alone a problem that you may wish to solve.So you need to stop your damned hand-waving and you need to buckle down and define the problem!:

• What are sample ages that you want to be able to solve for?
• What are sample "decreased longevity" ages that have since arisen?
• Over how long a period of time was this change supposed to have taken place? Actual start and stop dates would be an added plus.

Until you are able to do at least that, you don't even begin to have any kind of argument. So please stop stalling. Yet again: what is the magnitude of changes that your "argument" requires?Of course, that question depends on you first actually defining the problem, which you have so far refused to do. Until you define how much of an effect on the measurement of time would be required by your "argument", it is impossible to tell whether changing the period of the earth's orbit (and all that that would entail) or the rate of the rotation of the earth would even do anything at all like what your "argument" would require.Until you can do that, you have nothing even remotely resembling an argument but rather you are only engaging in mental masturbation and in jerking everybody around (and I'm sure that I'm speaking for everybody else on this forum when I tell you to keep your damned dirty paws away from our privates). That would be "accepted" only in the sense of "For the sake of this test, let us assume that ... ". That is done routinely in proof by contradiction in which you assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and show that that opposite is false. In that practice, "accepting" a premise is not the same as thinking that it is true, but rather it's a way to testing that premise with the very likely outcome of invalidating it, of eliminating that idea from consideration because it is demonstrably false.Part of the process of this step is requires at least some quantitative analysis in order to at least determine whether that premise is even the least bit feasible. If the premise is unfeasible, then it can be discarded for good reason, thus freeing you to stop wasting your time on it allowing you to seek better possible explanations. That is how science works!So give us the values, the parameters, that we need to test and evaluate your "argument".Mercury is tidally locked with the sun. What could "the current condition of Mercury" possibly have to do with the earth? You are babbling nonsense here. Snap out of it!

No, I will try the math after:
1. you agreed on my idea,
2. you request it.

No way. I learned enough from people like you.
Unless we agreed on something, I won't go to the next step. I won't be so stupid to waste my time.

We do not know when was the time of the Patriarchs time. So, let's assume the earth moved away from the sun 500 million miles from the time of Adam to the time of Abraham. If the average speed was 100 miles per year, it would only take 5 million years. At the beginning the runaway, the speed could be much higher, then it gradually slowed down.These ball park estimations suggest a true possibility of the model.

Why?

You won't agree with me anyway. Why bother?
Show your sincerity in the discussion.

1. From Adams age to the age of Abraham, roughly 900 to 200.
2. Do you see the decrease of age in the above?
3. That is a good question. We do not know. But we can certainly try some time periods to examine the model.The rest of what you said is real junky. Sad.

I wouldn’t disagree with properly applied mathematics. The precise workings of orbital peturbations are pretty well worked out, and have been for a couple of centuries now to the sort of accuracy your speculations would require. I’d need to dig out a couple of old textbooks to critique your math, yes, but bring it here and I’ll do so.Start, perhaps, with a fifty-kilometer diameter rocky asteroid coming within 500 km of the Earth’s surface, and tell me how much it shifts our orbit.

It wouldn't be suddenly, that's for sure. As anyone who has ever learned anything about orbital mechanics would know. Mind you, my own studies were over 40 years ago based on Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, a textbook developed for the US Air Force Academy (reprinted by Dover).In the Two-Body Problem, we normally deal with an elliptical orbit, though it can apply to other conic sections (for eccentricity e: e = 0 is circular, 01 is hyperbolic (think Voyager sling-shotting past Jupiter or Picard using that asteroid's gravity to pilot the Enterprise out of that minefield)).

​

Each orbit has a constant value called its Specific Mechanical Energy (in the book) or Specific Orbital Energy. It is a balance between the total potential and kinetic energy of the orbiting body -- ie, as the orbiting body moves further away from the orbited body its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, which is converted back to kinetic energy as the orbiting body moves closer in on the flip side of its orbit. This explains Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion: "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

​

The point is that the specific orbital energy of any given orbit remains constant unless the orbiting body is accelerated or decelerated by external forces. Such as the firing of a spacecraft's orbital maneuvering engines, which include the retro-rockets used in de-orbiting maneuvers. If you accelerate the body then it moves into a higher orbit and if you decelerate it (as in firing retros) then it moves into a lower orbit (eg, a highly elliptical orbit that intersects with the earth's surface). For a moon or a planet to be so accelerated would require the passing by at close proximity (required because gravity follows the inverse-square law) of a sufficiently massive body (and, no, comets are not even remotely sufficiently massive enough to effect the earth's orbit to any significant degree).

​

But wait, there's more! When you accelerate a body into a new higher orbit, it does not instantaneously jump up there. Rather, that new higher orbit continues to intersect with the old orbit at the point at which it was accelerated. That new higher orbit will be more highly eccentric and will return to the old orbit periodically. In order for that body to go into a new higher orbit which does not intersect in any way with the original orbit (eg, earth's orbit compared to Mercury's orbit) that body will have to experience a second acceleration.

​

The best example of this is the Hohmann transfer orbit which we have made extensive use of, especially from the Space Shuttle. From earth surface we launch a satellite in a low near-circular orbit (in the Space Shuttle examples, that LEO would be the shuttle's own orbit). Then maneuvering rockets (eg, a PAM in the case of a shuttle mission) accelerate the satellite into a higher elliptical transfer orbit whose perigee is at the old orbit and whose apogee is out at the distance of the desired new near-circular orbit (eg, a geo-synchronous orbit). At the apogee of that new orbit, maneuvering rockets fire again accelerating it to the specific orbital energy of the new orbit. The graphics on that Wikipedia page paint a much clearer picture that I can here.

​

The main point there is that such an orbital maneuver as Juvenissun is trying to invoke does require at the very least two separate accelerations, both of which have to happen at very specific points in that intermediate transfer orbit. So then some mysterious highly massive body is supposed to have passed within very close proximity to the earth (both times without running afoul of the Roche limit) twice at just the right times to have placed it in a significantly higher orbit, perfectly without disturbing the orbits of any other body in the solar system.

​

His utter ignorance and blithe indifference to the facts and to reality is mind-boggling. As Marvin remarked upon reading a human's mind (Arthur's; for some reason they kept leaving Trillian out of such discussions), one cannot imagine why anyone would want to live in something so small.

​

 

You obviously haven’t thought this through.

​

No, he hasn't. Nor will he ever. Because that's not what he wants.

​

Juvenissun is a creationist. He doesn't want any answers (since he believes that he has those already), but rather he wants reasons to deny the facts. Or more accurately, excuses to deny the facts, without any regard for how lame those excuses are. When no evidence exists for your position and all the evidence that does exist refutes your position, then the only way you can hold onto your false position in face of the facts is to not face those facts, but instead to ignore them or deny them or both.

​

What he seeks is akin to plausible deniability, though it ends up being far too implausible. He wants to be able to claim, no matter how falsely, that there is room for doubt and so his bald assertions have as much validity as the actual evidence.

​

Basically, what he and so many other creationists are trying to do is to mistreat science and reality the same way that they mistreat their religion. Instead of approaching their religion as whole cloth, they approach it as a cafeteria where absolutely everything is la carte. They pick and choose what they want to believe and what they want to ignore. They use theology to redefine their religion and to make up all kinds of sh*t, turning their religion into something completely different from the original forms.

​

Then they think they can do the same thing to reality, that they can redefine away whatever they don't like. But it doesn't work that way. A simple fact that they refuse to ever learn.

so that you don't look like Joseph P. Goatfucker from middle of nowhere USA who thinks he is right but in reality is too arrogant to recognize his own ignorance of the subject matter.