I need some help on a reply to a creationist...

Get the silly nimrod to explain how, then, Venus retains an atmosphere 90 times as dense as our while revolving 1/243 as fast as we do. Duuhhhh.....

Okay, I used that reply (thanks, btw), and he replied:"Venus has much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than Earth's. The result being a denser atmosphere and it also accounts for the 800 degree surface temperature. BTW, the gravity on Venus is about 88% of that on Earth.After a quick check in one of my astronomy books, I found out that the atmospheric pressure on Venus is 1,330 lbs per square inch, over 90 times greater than that on Earth. So that is the answer to your question. The high content (97% vs .03% on Earth) of carbon dioxide and the very high atmospheric pressure."Now, I'm no scientist, but what does that have to do with oceans falling off the face of the Earth?

Venus's atmosphere being 90 times as dense as ours with only 88% of the gravity would suggest, using this guy's reasoning, that the Earth has already shed about 99% of its atmosphere due to our dizzyingly fast rotation.
He's waffling around: the fact is that rotation speed has approximately nothing to do with retaining atmosphere/oceans, where gravity and atmospheric composition are what does matter. Ask him to specifically point out what it is about fast rotation that helps hold the oceans on - he's the one that posted that glurge and agreed with that claim.

But he probably won't reply until he gets off work. which is about 6 o'clock.

You might also want to ask with regards to oceans, if water is leaving the earth faster at the equator or the more extreme latitudes. The speed of rotation is actually faster as one moves toward the equator (which is why we have the coriolis effect). If there is a relation between rotation and bonding, we must see some difference.Oh yeah and if he really believes this principle perhaps he would like to demonstrate it by filling a bucket with water and then spinning faster and faster in place.If he wants to keep the water in the bucket, does he tip the top (opening) of the bucket toward himself, or away from himself?His theory predicts that he should point the bucket away from himself. Onlookers to this experiment will quickly, and perhaps angrily, disagree with his hypothesis.

---

holmes

"I never said that rotation speed is what keeps the atmosphere from leaving a planet.The Earth actually did lose much of its atmosphere billions of years ago. The lighter gases (like hydrogen and helium) all but disappeared a long time ago. There is more oxygen in the atmosphere because it is a heavier gas.BTW, I said that article was interesting; I didn't say that I agreed with all of it (just the general message). The author (who, I'm sure, is not an astronomer or meteorologist) should have worded that part different."

There is more oxygen in the atmosphere because plants constantly produce oxygen through photosynthesis. If it weren't for plants there would be very little free oxygen in the atmosphere because it is so reactive - it would combine chemically with the surface minerals.

Right, and don't plants absorb hydrogen? Or is that carbon dioxide?

I'm beginning to think this guy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You think there are any articles on Talkorigins about this?Anyway, here's his reply:"IIRC, the lighter gases escaped from the atmosphere long before there was any plant life. Because the Earth's atmosphere/gravity was not strong enough to hold in these gases. On the other hand, Jupiter, because of its large diameter (88,650 miles- hence large gravity), has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of Hydrogen (~90%) and Helium (~10%). Its gravity is 2.34 times that of Earth and the escape velocity is 59.5 mps (miles per second) compared to Earth's 11.2 mps.Yes, the photosynthesizing of fauna defintely did increase the oxygen (and decrease the carbon dioxide)."

That sounds about right - of course, though, Jupiter is in a considerably cooler neighborhood than Earth is, being five times as far from the sun. It's interesting to me that this guy appears to have started out defending the BS in the article, and now is backing off from it. Maybe he didn't expect to be challenged on it?

Wow, that's wierd. i posted a reply to his previous post at the same time you posted this message! Anyway, I asked him: "Okay, where did we lose track? What does this have to do with oceans falling off the Earth if it stops spinning?" He does seem to be backing off of that bogus theory.

This guy is totally subsiding. Here is his latest reply (he read a article I posted about how scientists created cells that could communicate, divide, etc.): "But how were the cells created? They did not create themselves. My faith tells me God created the cells. And it went on from there." I'm going to direct him toward the Miller Urey Experiment.[This message has been edited by M82A1, 12-31-2003]

Personally, though a lot is being learned, I'd leave the orgin of life as an "I dunno". He needs to get used to the fact that we don't know everything but that is not excuse for god-of-the-gapping it.

---

Common sense isn't

I really didn't want to do this, but I'm dealing with 3+ Creationists now and I don't really have the time for it. I was hesitant on posting a link to that thread because I nearly got banned before for recruiting people, but that was under different circumstances, and the people I invited were completely out of line. If you want to look at (or post on) the God or Evolution thread, you can go here: Forbidden[This message has been edited by M82A1, 01-05-2004]

This one is a YEC, and he just brought up the Supercontinent Pangaea in a reference to Noah gathering, and distributing all of the animals. And, when I made the statement that "Scientists predict the Big Bang occured over 15 billion years ago, and the Earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago," he said:"They 'predict' that age by:

​

A: Assuming the changes in the Space Time Continuum where the same then as today, there is no real evidence either way on that.

​

B: assuming the Speed of Light is a constant, even if in the last few years evidence to the contrary has be found."I can handle most of what this guy has to debate with, but some areas, I'm just not good at.

---

"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund BurkeLike to talk about Politics? Want to Bash Bush? Don't like Moderators? Come to my board: No webpage found at provided URL: m82a1.conforums.com Have fun...[This message has been edited by M82A1, 01-18-2004]