Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 2206 of 2370 (881433)
08-24-2020 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2204 by dwise1
08-23-2020 9:36 PM


Re: Time scales
Studies in ancient corals that show daily growth lines with an annual variation in thickness, show 420 days per year in the Silurian, 410 in Devonian, consistent with gradual slowing from tidal effects from the moon, and with both our state now and with current physics.
This alone makes the idea of the Earth more recently having a hugely reduced number of days per year beyond unlikely.
Also there are many studies on ancient temperatures at various times, and no evidence of the huge heating that would be induced by moving the Earth much closer to the Sun.
In following this thread, why am l reminded of Bassanio's comment re his friend in The Merchant of Venice : "Gratiano's reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in a bale of hay, you will seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search." ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2204 by dwise1, posted 08-23-2020 9:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2210 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2020 2:00 AM Pollux has not replied
 Message 2224 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:29 PM Pollux has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 2207 of 2370 (881434)
08-24-2020 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2198 by Juvenissun
08-23-2020 5:50 PM


Re: Science By Definition
quote:
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.
The next step is absolutely necessary if we ARE to agree with your claim. On the face of it your idea is - to put it politely - highly implausible. Unless you can show otherwise it should be rejected.
If you won’t do the next step - whether out of laziness or fear that it will not go the way you want - we will not and should not agree with your idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2198 by Juvenissun, posted 08-23-2020 5:50 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2228 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 2208 of 2370 (881436)
08-24-2020 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2199 by Juvenissun
08-23-2020 6:02 PM


Re: Time scales
quote:
We do not know when was the time of the Patriarchs time.
If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate you should have a good idea of the number of years.
quote:
So, let's assume the earth moved away from the sun 500 million miles from the time of Adam to the time of Abraham.
So, only a few thousand years at most. And most of those would be youR shorter years.
quote:
If the average speed was 100 miles per year, it would only take 5 million years.
Which is obviously far too long. Even 5 thousand (of our years) would be pushing the Biblical chronology - and certainly goes back well before the existence of human beings.
quote:
These ball park estimations suggest a true possibility of the model.
Obviously incorrect estimates that do not address the major problems of the idea (it is still not a model) do nothing to suggest that it is truly possible. Indeed the choice of incorrect estimates suggests that even you don’t believe it is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2199 by Juvenissun, posted 08-23-2020 6:02 PM Juvenissun has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2209 of 2370 (881438)
08-24-2020 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2202 by Juvenissun
08-23-2020 6:15 PM


Re: Time scales
The rest of what you said is real junky. Sad.
Well, your entire operation is extremely junky. Especially as you follow in the footsteps of convicted frauds like Kent Hovind.
Avoiding discussion. Dodging serious and legitimate questions. Spouting bullshit assertions that you refuse to support in any way, let alone discuss. What is wrong with you?
Plus you completely miss the reason for presenting the extremely bad example set by Kent Hovind: Don't do what this charlatan does. Don't be that guy!
So what do you do? You zealously strive to be that guy, to be a charlatan and a fraud. You zealously strive to do the same wrong things that he does. You know that it's wrong. You know why it's wrong. You know the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Yet you insist on doing it anyway. What is wrong with you?
But we can certainly try some time periods to examine the model.
Model? What model? You have no model!
Models must be constructed and it is that process of constructing a model which generates the body of evidence associated with that model. If you actually have a model, then you also have that model's evidence. The total lack of evidence indicates that there is no model.
Despite repeated requests and demands for you to present the evidence for your model, you have steadfastly refused to do so -- actually, you have resorted to desperate dishonest tricks to avoid presenting any evidence at all costs. Why? Because you have no model and you know it! You are consciously resorting to those dishonest tricks to cover up the fact that you are nothing but a fraud.
We are trying to get you to actually build a model and not lie about having a model which doesn't really exist. We are trying to help you become an honest creationist. And of course you fight desperately against that, because even you must realize what we have learned in decades of bitter experience, that the only honest creationist is an ex-creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2202 by Juvenissun, posted 08-23-2020 6:15 PM Juvenissun has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2210 of 2370 (881439)
08-24-2020 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2206 by Pollux
08-24-2020 12:21 AM


Re: Time scales
Studies in ancient corals that show daily growth lines with an annual variation in thickness, show 420 days per year in the Silurian, 410 in Devonian, consistent with gradual slowing from tidal effects from the moon, and with both our state now and with current physics.
This alone makes the idea of the Earth more recently having a hugely reduced number of days per year beyond unlikely.
Yes, the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down is about 2 ms per day per century (ie, every 100 years, the day has become 2 milliseconds longer). Since the international second is based on the length of the day around 1900, current days are 2 ms longer and hence atomic time (the official time base) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC -- our clock time) accumulate 2 ms of error every day, resulting in an accumulated error of about one second after 18 months of time. For that reason, the two clocks must be synchronized by subtracting a leap second from UTC at intervals of about 18 months, analogous to how leap years work and why they're necessary. Because of variations in the forces that are slowing down and speeding up the earth's rotation, the earth's rotation is constantly monitored by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS).
My last work before retiring was more than 20 years on our product lines which used GPS receivers for precision frequency and time division (vital to the operation of communications networks, such as your cell phone). We were constantly working with leap seconds. GPS time started on Sunday, 06 Jan 1980, so there were many technical and popularized articles about the NAVSTAR project, such that many people heard about leap seconds for the very first time even though they'd been in use since around 1970.
Among those hearing about leap seconds for the first time was a creationist named Walt Brown. He didn't understand what they were (frankly, the Popular Science article which he referenced along with a couple USAF magazines devotes just one paragraph to the subject and that wasn't written very clearly), so he made the mistake of thinking that adding a leap second meant that the earth's rotation had slowed down by one second in 18 months. That led to the infamous false "leap second" creationist claim which assumes a rate of rotational deceleration that's hundreds of times too great and that refuses to die even though it was soundly refuted within a few years (even Walt Brown appeared to have realized his mistake and stopped using it, though he didn't stop using his false cytochrome c claim in a manner which proves deliberate lying on his part). My web page on that claim is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/earth_rotation.html.
But frankly, I have never been to understand why creationists would think that changes in the length of the day would have any effect on the length of the year which is instead dependent on the period of the earth's orbit.
{ABE
OK, that Popular Science article, "The Riddle of the Leap Second" by Arthur Fisher (Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110- 113, 164-166), actually had four short paragraphs describing leap seconds, which I quote on my web page (from page 164 of that article):
quote:
But, to use atomic clocks to keep the time of day, time experts had to lengthen or "offset" each second slightly to make it correspond to Earth's lagging rate. This offset atomic time was called Universal Coordinated Time (UTC).
On Jan. 1, 1972, a new time scale, agreed on by the International Radio Consultative Committee, went into effect. There will be no more offsetting of clock rates; UTC will be a pure atomic scale. But the rule is that it must not be allowed to get more than 0.7 seconds out of kilter with Earth time -- actually the navigator's time UT1. Whenever the gap threatens to exceed that margin, in the judgment of Bernard Guinot, head of the International Bureau of Time (BIH, its acronym in France), a leap second will be added (or subtracted, should the Earth decide to speed up). The process is analogous to adding leap years, only not so predictable.
Monsieur Guinot, whom I met in Boulder, told me that he expected that about one leap second per year would be needed, on average, and that the one added on June 30, 1972, would probably suffice until the following June (the BIH prefers to add the leap second either at the end of June or the end of December, to avoid confusion).
But he also said it would be hard to know in advance. In that he was certainly correct, for since that time the Earth slowed down just enough more to require another leap second in 1972 -- a step that made celebrating New Year's Eve even more confused than it usually is. And since 1972 was a leap year to begin with, that made it the longest calendar year ever -- in spades.
The problem with that quote is that you pretty much need to already understand what leap seconds are to be able to understand it. Without that previous knowledge, it's easy to fall victim to the same kind of confusion that Walt Brown did.
In 1987 (14 years after this article was published) the responsibilities of the BIH were taken over by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS -- initials carried over from its earlier name, the International Earth Rotation Service).
Edited by dwise1, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2206 by Pollux, posted 08-24-2020 12:21 AM Pollux has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2211 of 2370 (881442)
08-24-2020 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2197 by Juvenissun
08-23-2020 5:45 PM


Re: Time scales
Juvenissun writes:
No, I will try the math after:
1. you agreed on my idea,
That's really stupid. How would you react if I said I would prove God doesn't exist only after you agree?
Juvenissin writes:
2. you request it.
Why would I request anything from you? So far, you look like you know nothing.
Showing your work is for YOUR benefit, not mine.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2197 by Juvenissun, posted 08-23-2020 5:45 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2212 by jar, posted 08-24-2020 11:57 AM ringo has replied
 Message 2229 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:41 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2212 of 2370 (881448)
08-24-2020 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2211 by ringo
08-24-2020 9:31 AM


Re: Time scales
It's interesting that we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles) showing they were constructed about 7000 years ago or pretty much contemporary with Adam & Eve. Seems that after they left the garden they were busy little beavers.
Makes you wonder when "Don't fence me in" was actually written.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2211 by ringo, posted 08-24-2020 9:31 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2213 by ringo, posted 08-24-2020 12:36 PM jar has not replied
 Message 2215 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2020 1:12 PM jar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2213 of 2370 (881450)
08-24-2020 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2212 by jar
08-24-2020 11:57 AM


Re: Time scales
jar writes:
we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles)
Hmm.... They had a preference for geometric figures a long time ago.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2212 by jar, posted 08-24-2020 11:57 AM jar has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2214 of 2370 (881452)
08-24-2020 1:04 PM


I
It sure is a good thing that I am retired and quarantined. I waste
nearly all my time anyway, and threads like this one make it easier! Thanks, Juve!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2230 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:45 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2215 of 2370 (881453)
08-24-2020 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2212 by jar
08-24-2020 11:57 AM


Re: Time scales
It's interesting that we now have additional information of the Iraq stone structures called mustatils (rectangles) showing they were constructed about 7000 years ago or pretty much contemporary with Adam & Eve. Seems that after they left the garden they were busy little beavers.
There's a classic YEC PRATT which is their "human population model", AKA "The Bunny Blunder". I examine it on my web page, THE BUNNY BLUNDER, which includes examining a few of the versions that Henry Morris presented (he seems to be the primary source for the PRATT). Another of my sources was the David H. Milne article, "Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid" (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 4, No. 4, Fall 1984) that makes the same point that you do:
quote:
As if these fatal flaws were not enough, Morris's calculation has ridiculous implications. For example, if we assume for the moment that human numbers really did grow exponentially at a per capita rate of r = 0.0033, starting with two people in 4300 BC, then we can calculate the world population of year 2500 BC. By Morris's calculation, that number is 750 individuals. If Egypt, with about 1% of the Earth's land surface area, also had 1% of its population, then about eight people must have lived in Egypt at that time. However, the Great Pyramid of the Egyptian king Cheops was built in about 2500 BC. If the creationists are right, then the Pyramid was built by eight people. In fact, suppose that the entire population of the Earth lived in Egypt at that time. Half of the 750 souls were women (who I don't think worked on the Pyramid); half of the males were children (ditto) and a few exalted characters (Cheops himself and his assorted advisors) undoubtedly convinced the others that nobility should not have to haul heavy limestone blocks. That leaves about 150 able-bodied men to quarry 2,300,000 blocks (ranging from 2.5 to 50 tons in weight), haul them to the construction site and raise the 480-foot Pyramid. Does anyone who has seen this colossal monument believe that 150 men could have built it? Yet that is what Morris, through the magic of his calculation, must boldly assert.
World history prior to 2500 BC, in the Morris scenario, becomes even more remarkable. Six pyramids, some comparable in size to the Great Pyramid, were built at nearby sites within the previous 200-year period (as were numerous accessory causeways, temples, etc.). The parents and grandparents of the 750 people at the Great Pyramid site must have built them, at the rate of one every 33 years. Their numbers (which, recall, constituted the entire human population of the Earth) were fewer thenonly about 300-400 soulsand they were distracted by the need to perform a fast migratory quick-step over to Mesopotamia to build (and abandon) a number of fortified towns that appeared at about that time. The action was even more frenzied in earlier centuries. World population in 3600 BC, as calculated by the Morris equation, was 20 people. A century earlier, in 3700 BC, it was 14 people. And a century earlier than that, it was 10 people. So, in the Morris scenario, a world population of one or two dozen people must have rushed back and forth between Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley, and other sites of ancient civilization, energetically building and abandoning enough cities, irrigation works, monuments and other artifacts to leave us with the mistaken impression that millions of people populated the ancient world.
My comment to that on my web page is, "My father was right; we HAVE gotten soft!"
Milne also gives the reason why this PRATT is called the "Bunny Blunder":
quote:
To understand why the creationists are wrong, consider this example. Suppose that a creationist were studying snowshoe hares, somewhere in Canada in the early 1930's. At that time, the bunnies were multiplying at a per capita rate of about r = 0.57 (57% per year). If that was all that our biologist knew about the rabbits' history and biology, the Morris calculation would enable him to determine that the first two snowshoe hares of all time appeared on Earth in late 1885, during the Cleveland Administration. Not only that, but the Morris calculation applied to minks, muskrats, foxes, and lynxes (which were also multiplying at that time) would also place the date of the creation of the Earth and life in the late 1800's. If one accepts that the Cleveland Administration was not the perpetrator of it all, then where are the errors? Here, two major mistakes are involved. First, the creationist in this instance did not use all of the known facts in arriving at his conclusion. Second, he assumed that the entire rabbit history was similar to that of those last few years that he was able to observe. In fact, the hares (and their predators) are known to cycle in abundance. In 1933 their numbers were increasing, but only as the latest in a series of roller coaster ups and downs that can be traced clear back into the 1700's. Over the long haul, r = 0 for the bunnies, a fact that would not be evident to an observer who watched them only during the early 30's.
I first heard about the Bunny Blunder in a 1985 presentation by Fred Edwords; it brought down the house and left the audience ROFL'ing (rolling on the floor laughing). Edwords finished that section of his presentation with a quote, also from Milne as I seem to recall:
quote:
"Creationism is more fun than science!"
Edited by dwise1, : grammatical edit
added reference to audience response to Fred Edwords' telling of it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2212 by jar, posted 08-24-2020 11:57 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2221 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:18 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2216 of 2370 (881456)
08-24-2020 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2202 by Juvenissun
08-23-2020 6:15 PM


Re: Time scales
DWise1 writes:
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.
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.
And you still have not answered the question of how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require. We keep asking for it, trying to drag it out of you like having to pull teeth, and you remain clench-jawed in your refusal to provide that information.
If you actually had a model for this, then you would already have that figure (ie (repeated here because of your extremely short attention span, selective blindness, and selective stupidity), how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require). Giving us that required value would be trivially simple for you to do.
But since you in fact do not have any model -- nothing more than the merest glimmer of the beginning of a potential model -- you cannot give us that required value because you do not have it. For that matter, you haven't even given it any thought yet.
Start developing your "model"! Figure out what you need for your model to work. Test every assumption you make (knowing what your model needs for it to work is essential to this part). Work with others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2202 by Juvenissun, posted 08-23-2020 6:15 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2220 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:15 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2217 of 2370 (881461)
08-24-2020 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2162 by Juvenissun
08-21-2020 3:33 AM


Re: Time scales
Juvenissun writes:
So, on one hand, you talk geology to "prove" the Flood is not possible.
On the other hand, you said Noah is a fictional person, so both Noah and the Flood are not possible.
Noah, as depicted in the Bible, did not exist because a global flood did not exist. If there was a Noah he is not the person described in the Bible.
If so, why should I bother to talk to you on geology and science?
Why do you ignore geology and the sciences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2162 by Juvenissun, posted 08-21-2020 3:33 AM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2219 by Juvenissun, posted 08-24-2020 5:09 PM Taq has not replied

  
Juvenissun
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2218 of 2370 (881462)
08-24-2020 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2203 by Coragyps
08-23-2020 8:29 PM


Re: Time scales
tart, 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.
I don't know the equations for the calculation. But I do believe the fly-by will have some effect to the orbit of the earth. A few years ago, even the earthquake which caused tsunami in Indian Ocean affect the orbit.
I would assume an asteroid of the moon size, fly-by the earth 50 km above the earth. I guess the method of calculation should be the same.
Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2203 by Coragyps, posted 08-23-2020 8:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2223 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2020 5:24 PM Juvenissun has replied

  
Juvenissun
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2219 of 2370 (881464)
08-24-2020 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2217 by Taq
08-24-2020 4:58 PM


Re: Time scales
Sorry, no answer to your question.
Both Noah and the Flood do not exist.
That is fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2217 by Taq, posted 08-24-2020 4:58 PM Taq has not replied

  
Juvenissun
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2220 of 2370 (881465)
08-24-2020 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2216 by dwise1
08-24-2020 2:00 PM


Re: Time scales
how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require
Assume Adam can live 120 years, which is the same as a normal person could today (happy with this assumption?). That is 120 circles around the sun. In the same period of time, the earth at Adam's time made 950 circles. Could you figure out how faster (than today) should the earth circulate at Adam's time?
I guess this would be a good math question for school kids.
Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2216 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2020 2:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2222 by jar, posted 08-24-2020 5:21 PM Juvenissun has replied
 Message 2235 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2020 7:30 PM Juvenissun has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024