Did the Flood really happen?

It's hard to tell whether you're kidding around because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood.

Duane Gish understood.

Who knows on what he's basing his claim to be a geologist. I've seen so many creationists make such false claims before; eg:

• That creationist who vehemently insisted that he was a scientist solely because he had attended a science class once. Maybe Juvenissun had once attend a geology class so now he's a "geologist".
  ​
• Maybe Juvenissun once watched a PBS show on geology like PBS' "The Making of a Continent" (1983). So with one PBS show under his belt, now he's a geologist?
  ​
  BTW, a couple years later I watched that show with my then-four-year-old son. When the episode got to plate tectonics, my son kept saying "I knew that." But then it got to something he didn't know (I seem to recall that it was plate subduction at a plate boundary) and he quietly said "I didn't know that" a couple times before falling silent. I cannot help but think that my 4-yr-old son probably understood more of that program than Juvenissun did.
  ​
• It was on a Yahoo Groups forum where I did most of my first discussion of Kent Hovind's bogus solar-mass-loss claim. Even though I had already calculated the total mass lost in 5 billion years (Hovind's own figure, though he also used 20 billion years which is much more than the currently estimate of the age of the universe so I ignored that one), one creationist, BlueBird (not exact to protect his privacy), refused to accept it and wrote a QuickBASIC program to calculate it. However, his program got stuck in an infinite loop because his loop variable started out as an integer, but when it overflowed BASIC switched it to floating-point, but that format (IEEE 754, I'd assume) didn't have enough precision so adding one to that floating-point variable never changed its value. I tried to explain the problem to BlueBird, but he refused to listen, proclaiming himself to be a "professional programmer" -- I'm a retired software engineer with a BS Computer Science. He knew nothing about the most basic concepts in computer science, but he was a professional solely because he had once been paid for a QuickBASIC program he had written. Ironically, when I converted his program to nested loops that didn't overflow, his program produced lower results than my own calculations had (BlueBird and Hovind needed those results to be much higher). Then suddenly BlueBird had very important business to attend to elsewhere (ie, he ran away like all creationists end up doing).
  ​
  So maybe Juvenissun had once been paid by a farmer to figure out where to dig a well, so suddenly he's a "geologist".
  ​
• For decades Kent Hovind has continually bragged about being an expert in science and mathematics because he taught both subjects "in high school for 15 years." That "high school" was three private Baptist schools (one of which he had started), so we know that they had no academic standards regarding teacher qualifications. Also, that was for 13 years, not 15, so we have an example of his expertise in arithmetic. We don't know how much science and math training he had in his own schooling: high school graduate, one year at community college, transferred to an unaccredited Baptist college earning a bachelor's in religion, bought his masters and doctorate in "religious education" from a degree mill.
  ​
  In addition, from Glenn R. Morton's presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (see my Message 2283) on geological evidence he had collected while working as a petroleum geologist, John Morris of the ICR challenged him starting by identifying himself as a "petroleum geologist". It turned out that Morris was not a petroleum geologist, having never worked in that profession, but rather he had once taught the subject at a state university.
  ​
  Reportedly a famous imposter (I think Tony Curtis portrayed him in The Great Imposter, 1961) said that the easiest profession to fake was a college professor. All he had to do was to read the textbook a few chapters ahead of the class.
  ​
  So maybe Juvenissun had once taught a geology class, so that suddenly makes him a geologist.

And of course we have Juvenissun's consistent misconduct here. He always goes out of his way to avoid answering even the simplest questions as if he is trying to hide his own ignorance of geology. After repeatedly insisting that he will only talk with a geologist, but when a geologist does present himself (Minnemooseus in Message 2129) Juvenissun immediately runs away. This guy stinks of fraud.Edited by dwise1, : removed possible ambiguity by naming Juvenissun explicitly

Sorry, but you are obviously over-inflating yourself. You come nowhere close to the level of school kids. Maybe if you would stop clinging so desperately to your abject ignorance you might one day achieve the level of school kids. Frankly and sadly, I don't think you have it in you. No conceivable effect on the orbit of the earth of the kind that you are fishing for. However, it would most definitely have an effect on the rate of spin of the earth, since such an event would change the earth's moment of inertia (the rotational analog to mass in calculating momentum, which is mass × velocity). As I already explained to you (Message 2223 and Message 2248), ... [sigh] ... when you change the earth's moment of inertia then you also change its rate of rotation because of Conservation of Angular Momentum.Conservation of angular momentum is such a basic and simple concept that I cannot comprehend how you could be so abjectly ignorant of it. So you are also abjectly ignorant of kinetic energy? Really? How is that humanly possible? School kids know about kinetic energy! You really do need to start working very hard to try to get up to their level (except I know that you will refuse to because knowledge and learning are against your religion).You really have no clue why the subsidence of a mountain would have far less effect than a mountain-sized asteroid hitting the earth at high velocity? Really? Your ignorance is absolutely mind-boggling. Inhuman even. 
Seriously, I need to learn how your brain stunted by scientific illiteracy thinks that things work. I presented a few questions to you that I do need honest answers to (despite your demonstrated inability to do anything honestly).Again from Message 2281: Until we understand what scientific illiterates such as yourself are not understanding, we cannot help you.

It maybe an idea to ask Juve if he know the difference between orbiting and rotating. I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.

Sure, I'm game (don't shoot me! -- old joke: if a hunter suggests you do something, never respond with "I'm game")Of course, you will completely ignore my response and absolutely refuse to learn anything, so I'm doing this for the edification of the lurkers and of the other forum members -- this forum page reports the presence of 6 members and 49 visitors. Yes, that is the case in basic chaos theory. However, that applies to the effects of minor differences in initial conditions which then amplify into large effects at much later stages of the system. It's popularly known as "the Butterfly Effect". That is not what we are dealing with here.There are also certain systems in which changes in some factors have much more effect than others. You can use partial differentiation to see how the different dependent variables affect their multiple variable function, or at the very least differentiate that function with respect to an individual variable -- but since you appear to be extremely challenged even by simple algebra, I very much doubt that you have any clue about calculus.For example, the rate of a fusion reaction is dependent on a number of factors. I've seen that function. I noticed that the rate of fusion is directly proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power. That makes the rate of a fusion reaction very sensitive to changes in temperature -- eg, differentiating that function we find changes in that rate to be directly proportional to the cube of changes in temperature. That is a case of a system being sensitive to small changes, basically on a curve similar to an exponential curve.Gravitational force is different, because it is directly proportional to the central body's mass. Here's the formula again since your copying lost the mark-up (to copy the mark-up tags, go into Peek Mode): As someone able to read algebra (which I assume you cannot do according to your performance so far) can see, gravitational force is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the central body and the orbiting body. If you were to double that mass, then you would only double the gravitational force. If you were to decrease that mass by a factor of 0.9996, then you would decrease gravitational force by that same factor. Since 0.9996 is very close to one, then that amounts to virtually no change!BTW, that factor of 0.9996 is the effects of solar mass loss over the past five billion years. As I have already told you. Which we have found to cause one of the factors affecting how fast the earth rotates, albeit a major factor. Some of the factors slow the earth's rotation down and some speed it up (your collapsing Himalayas would speed it up), but the overall effect is that the earth's rotation is slowing down.The fact that the earth's rotation is not constant came to be suspected by astronomers in the late 19th century so they started making very meticulous measurements. By the 1920's, they had confirmed their suspicions and started working out a much more accurate form of time-keeping using astronomical measurements, which by 1951 led to the establishment of astronomical time whose second was based on the length of the mean solar day in 1900, which was when all those meticulous measurements were made. The development of atomic clocks in the 1950's and 1960's led to an atomic standard for time which adopted the astronomical second as its standard. That second from 1900 then became the International Standard second (SI second).The earth's rotation is slowing down at the rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century, so in the century since 1900 the mean solar day has become 2 ms longer.In all past discussions of this, you have insisted that changing the rate of the earth's spin would change its orbit about the sun and would do so drastically. Have you finally realized how utterly wrong that idea of yours is or are you still holding to it? 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.So then the earth is losing mass, not gaining it. Do please try to make some kind of effort to get something right.Second, the mass of the sun is so much greater than the mass of the earth, so the former swamps out the latter (since you seem challenged by English, that means that the sun's mass swamps out the effects of the earth's mass, especially with regard to the earth's orbit). 
Certainly as the sun loses its mass over time, then the earth's orbit would move farther out over time. The only question is: by how much?I have already told you that in Message 2177, Message 2280, and on my web page, Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. The amount of the loss of solar mass over a period of five billion years (1 billion = 10⁹) caused the earth's orbit to increase its size (ie, its semi-major axis which represents its radius -- its an ellipse thing that you would not understand) by less than 60,000 miles. So in another 5 billion years, we would expect the earth's orbit to change by another 60,000 miles. 
We've been through all this several times already. Why do you still refuse to learn anything?

I've already tried but it's impossible to try to reason with Juvenissun.He seems to also have gotten his ideas about orbital mechanics from Sandra Bullock's movie, Gravity, in which the space junk debris cloud was ripping through low earth orbit much faster than the various spacecraft in that same orbit. That's not how it works, yet he seems to think otherwise. I've asked him that question directly two times now. No response. That may well be the case, though his confusion seems to run far deeper.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.Edited by dwise1, : qs and my reply

There has not been a flood on the moon. The moon rocks are bone dry and moon rocks can not change like the same rocks would do on the earth. So the moon rocks stopped generating water soon after their formation.Is it enough?

Your stuff read much better now. And thanks for giving so much information. It is tooo long, and I don't know how to respond to all of them. So, I just pick some:There is no butterfly effect in the geologic process. Even it has, the rate would be too slow to see the impact. What I am talking about is a single simple process, but continued for millions of years.If the earth rotation slowed down 2E-3 sec. per year, then in 2E8 years (back to the Jurrasic time), the earth would be 1E5 sec. slower in spinning. The same consideration applies to the mass change of the earth. The earth is gaining weight since the beginning.I don't think there is any fusion reaction at the center of the earth. The center of the earth is solid, with a density like that of gold. This comes from seismology.

Seriously, this is a highly likely event in the earth history. It might have happened more than once. The reason is trivial. The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times. A sudden change of orbit must be the consequence. 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. A careful study on the rate change of some key geological processes may reveal something about it.

You can ask me that question.

No, it is not enough! ringo asked you a direct and sincere question. You dodged that question to avoid answering it.How's 'bout you just answer his question? You make us wonder what you are trying to hide.

OK, so answer it already.And while you're at it, please answer my simple questions which I now present to you for the third time:Again from Message 2281: My questions are pertinent to NosyNed's message because he's asking the same kind of question: Why are you so confused and why are you coming up with such crazily stupid stuff?

Some possible data for you:Mass: The area of Tibet, 30 km thick.
Density: in average 3.0
Speed of fall: Hmm.. I am not sure on this. Roughly 3 km in 5 million years. Notice this is an average speed.
Landed on the surface of earth's mantle (not a entirely solid material).I care less about the spin of earth. But would that change the orbit of the earth (just a little bit)?

No. It won't.That is the point. A collision between asteroid and earth would have 50% (?) chance to push the earth away from the sun.