Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

quote:

---

You gotta be kidding. All your side of the discussion has demonstrated is how little science you know, and how resistant you are to learning any.

---

But, my friend, has not my scientific ideology produced enough of a challenge to you all's scientific ideology to make this thread the hottest the busiest going concern in town?

quote:

---

It's still not clear that you understand that global warming is not synonymous with global drought.........

---

But I've provided documentation to show that both are going on simultaneously on the planet as we speak and in fact, links to show that they are each indeed somewhat synonymously linked in some ways so as each adds the likelihood of the other to occur. It's common sense that if you have global warming, you're going to have hotter temperatures, more evaporation and less cooling so as to effect condensation.

quote:

---

, or that the temperatures necessary to hold the volume of water necessary for the flood would wipe out life on the planet, or that the evidence for an ancient earth contained in the oceans is unequivocal.

---

You folks refuse to factor in that hotter temps are going to raise the atmosphere higher, causing a chain reaction of the vapor rising higher into a warmer higher atmosphere, reducing the pull of gravity on the risen vapor, reducing the weight of the vapor on each square inch of earth's surface to finally reduce the likelihood of the vapor to condense and fall as rain. Just like the space ship. The higher it goes, the less it takes to keep it up there. The only difference is that the heat raises the vapor up and the fueled engines raise the ship.Now, I can hear it. You're going to keep coming back with the thing that it takes too much heat to raise the vapor, but I still contend that that depends on the time span of the heat and the evaporation, the temperature of the heated up atmosphere and other unknowns which alter the present day calculations. They're not that down pat. Plus don't forget that in my hypothesis, two miracle effecting men cause the rain not to fall, so if you want to discuss my hypothesis as I laid it out on day one, you've gotta factor that in.

quote:

---

It is now clear that you're resorting to the supernatural, so I repeat an earlier question that you didn't address. How do you know in what way God is going to circumvent natural laws? For example, why does he need a vapor canopy?

---

I did address that. I cited the fact that the climate described by the prophets is indicitave of a canopy because the seasons are hardly existing during the messianic millenium. In Amos 9:13 we read that the "ploughman will overtake the reaper." When the crop is reaped, the global weather is such that the plowing for the new crop can commence as the reaper finishes reaping. I also cited that men will live long, according to the prophets, as they did before the flood.

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't mention one. Why can't God just say, "Let it rain for 40 days and 40 nights," and have it be so?

---

Dono. Who'm I to tell my maker how to say stuff? Imo, he likes to have us to be as the olympians. If you want the high prize, you gotta work at it. A lotta what he says is said in such a way that you gotta figure out the mystery. He often says things like, "Blessed is he who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says." And this: "You shall seek me and find me if you will search for me with all your heart." And, "Study to show yourself approved of God; a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God."I've been at it for 58 years now diligently since becoming a Christian at age 10 and still a lot to learn. The Bible, especially the prophecies are complex, because you have about 40 different authors and you need to consider the input of more than one, with most any given subject, comparing scripture with scripture. Maybe God only wants those who search to find. I dono.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-08-2003]

quote:

---

According to my dictionary, a theory can be anything from a mental contemplation based on certain abservable factors to a mere guess. Scientists are clearly involved in the whole spectrum of this definition -- some more consertavtive and some more liberal. The same can be said for Biblicalists.

---

In general usage, "theory" means something like "educated guess", or "informed speculation".The term "theory" as it applies to science, means something specific and altogether different than the general definition.This is a common mistake of the lay person, but easily rectified.Here are a couple of very good explanations of how scientists use the word "theory" and "fact" specifically as they relate to the ToE:Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981""A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-08-2003]

quote:

---

If you want the high prize, you gotta work at it. A lotta what he says is said in such a way that you gotta figure out the mystery.

---

But that's completely opposite to what you claimed about your god in an earlier post.You said that your god was not a god of confusion, and that multiple interpretations didn't seem right to you.If your god didn't want any confusion, then why did he make anything in the bible mysterious or make is such that it needed figuring out?

Actually, to be honest (and I hope you can handle blatant honesty) we enjoy pointing out your ignorance. It makes us feel like know-it-alls. Actually what your sources showed was that local temperatures led to local drought - and we countered with areas experiencing record rainfall as a result.Local heat and local drought are something very different than global heat and global drought. We've explained over and over why this is wrong. I don't see how you could have missed it, except by ignoring arguments that you don't know how to counter. In particular I refer you to a number of posts by me that explained that it's not height that keeps the spaceship up, it's speed. If the ship stopped moving it would immediately plummet to the earth like a stone. Factor in the supernatural? The definition of the supernatural is that it can't be factored into scientific reasoning. It transcends science. (If it exists.) It can't be factored into calculations. By way of illustrating the looseness of prophecy, when I first read this I assumed it was about population growth (represented by the ploughman - the farmer - growth, life, birth, etc) overtaking death (the reaper, obviously), leading to overpopulation. Maybe he wants you to use your god-given intellect instead of taking the 2000-year-old words of some dusty, all-too-human writers?

Oh, and Buzsaw, are you going to relpy to my comments about why we find seashells on top of mountains where we also find evidence of tectonic activity and uplift, and also about the findings of Creationist Geologists 180 years ago?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun.

---

Can you document modifications which are significant enough to factualize the theory of evolution to the degree that the earth's revolution around the sun is factual?

quote:

---

Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality.

---

Welllllll then, on that basis I declare the Bible the status of supernaturalhood on the basis of it's fulfilled prophecies, as the evidence in it's favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and ubiased person could deny it's reality. And the book being supernatural, I declare the facthood of Biblical creation as the evidence in it's favor became so strong that no knowledgeable person could deny it's reality.

I haven't forgotten your unresponded post Schraf. We had a thunderstorm and I had to shut down and unplug before I got to yours. Don't forget that on this thread It is my lot to answer the arguments of four to six conterparts to each of your one.

That's a pretty loaded question. A dishonest person could simply respond "that's not significant enough" to anything Schraf could produce. Perhaps you could make that question a litle more specific.

quote:

---

That's a pretty loaded question. A dishonest person could simply respond "that's not significant enough" to anything Schraf could produce. Perhaps you could make that question a litle more specific.

---

It's not loaded at all. Simply cite a link or two that produces the documentation for the claim Schraf made.

quote:

---

Oh, and Buzsaw, are you going to relpy to my comments about why we find seashells on top of mountains where we also find evidence of tectonic activity and uplift, and also about the findings of Creationist Geologists 180 years ago?

---

But they're found pretty much all over the globe where the rocks are of the right nature to preserve them. You all interpret these as coming from glaciers n stuff eons ago. We creationists interpret these as coming from the Naoic flood. So we all grant our views the status of facthood on the basis of how we interpret what we observe. That doesn't make any of us any less intelligent. It just reflects our individual ideologies. And of course as to knowledge, you all show as much ignorance about my science as you think I show about yours. I guess that's why we're now on page 13.

quote:

---

Actually, to be honest (and I hope you can handle blatant honesty) we enjoy pointing out your ignorance. It makes us feel like know-it-alls.

---

Well, bud, I gotta say, you people are intelligent enough and so educated that I feel somewhat honored to be able to debate with you all this long, but then, I say a little prayer whenever I light up my PC and God helps me to say what I need to say.

quote:

---

Actually what your sources showed was that local temperatures led to local drought - and we countered with areas experiencing record rainfall as a result.

---

1. I could have gone on and on with more links, but didn't want to belabor my point and us up more bandwidth.
2. One link cited the whole southern hemisphere as getting hotter and dryer. That's hardly local.
3. I cited links covering large areas in both the eastern and western hemispheres. I believe I pretty much established by documentation that it is beginning, I say beginning to show a global trend in favor of my position.You folks refuse to factor in that hotter temps are going to raise the atmosphere higher, causing a chain reaction of the vapor rising higher into a warmer higher atmosphere, reducing the pull of gravity on the risen vapor, reducing the weight of the vapor on each square inch of earth's surface to finally reduce the likelihood of the vapor to condense and fall as rain. Just like the space ship. The higher it goes, the less it takes to keep it up there. The only difference is that the heat raises the vapor up and the fueled engines raise the ship.

quote:

---

We've explained over and over why this is wrong. I don't see how you could have missed it, except by ignoring arguments that you don't know how to counter. In particular I refer you to a number of posts by me that explained that it's not height that keeps the spaceship up, it's speed. If the ship stopped moving it would immediately plummet to the earth like a stone.

---

1. My mentioning the space ship this time around was a general statement to show that in rising, the space ship takes less power to move at higher speeds than it takes at lower altitudes and once in space it takes no power to keep it going. You all keep on keeping on ignoring the FACT that the higher vapor rises the more vapor it's going to take to maintain the same pressure at earth's surface, because there's less gravitational pull on it to bring it back the higher it gets, just as with the spacecraft. The spacecraft must use rocket power to lower itself back out of space orbit. Right?
2. If you want to respond to my above post objectively, please take each of my statements and refute them if you can rather than taking this space ship thing outa context and applying it to discredit my scientifically factural statements.Plus don't forget that in my hypothesis, two miracle effecting men cause the rain not to fall, so if you want to discuss my hypothesis as I laid it out on day one, you've gotta factor that in.

quote:

---

Factor in the supernatural? The definition of the supernatural is that it can't be factored into scientific reasoning. It transcends science. (If it exists.) It can't be factored into calculations.

---

1. Regardless of what anybody says, if anything can be shown to exist, it's scientific to acknowledge it's existence. The fulfilled prophecies are actually more evidence that it exists than anything you have to prove the alleged fact of evolution.

quote:

---

By way of illustrating the looseness of prophecy, when I first read this I assumed it was about population growth (represented by the ploughman - the farmer - growth, life, birth, etc) overtaking death (the reaper, obviously), leading to overpopulation.

---

Now you're showing your ignorance in my field of expertise. The context favors highly my literal interpretation.

True, but it's hardly global either, now is it? Even if it's getting hotter and dryer in the southern hemisphere, that just means it's getting more humid in the northern. Hence, record rain/snowfall in a lot of places that have never had that. Not to lower itself, to slow itself. We'll cover that in a bit. Actually, since gravity constitutes the bulk of your inference it's important to get this right, so we're going to stick with this until we feel you've grasped it. don't worry; I have the time.A spaceship in orbit experiences as much gravitational tug as anything on the surface of the earth. Got that? It sounds weird, and contrary to "common sense" and popular depictions of space travel, but it's true. Being high up doesn't significantly reduce the Earth's gravitational tug. You have to be out beyond the orbit of the moon (some nearly 200,000 miles) before gravity is really weakened.If you think about it, you already know this is true. That's why spaceships and satellites continue to orbit around the earth in a circle instead of shooting out in a straight line into deep space.Ok, so gravity maintains as much of a pull on the spaceship in orbit as it does on the spaceship on the launch pad. What then keeps it up? Its intense speed. What maintains its speed? Inertia (the tendancy for an object in motion to remain in motion) and the lack of air friction outside the earth's atmosphere. This is stuff I covered several posts ago but you really don't show signs of having understood it.You could orbit the Earth at a mile above the surface if there wasn't air friction to slow you down, because you'd have to maintain a speed of only about 8-9 miles a second. When there's no air, there's nothing to slow you down, so you don't have to expend fuel to maintain speed.As for the leaving orbit, let me try to explain - I'm on a ship in orbit with the Earth whirling directly below me. How do I get back home? Not by firing my engines above me (pushing me down), but by firing them in front of me, to slow me down. As I lose speed my orbit decends (faster speeds mean higher orbits) until I hit the atmosphere, which slows me down even further (and heats me up, which is why I have all those heat-resistant re-entry tiles all over the bottom of my ship).Are you getting this yet? Let me try and summarize:Within the distance we're talking about, height above the earth does not decrease the earth's gravitational attraction. Spaceships are held up in orbit by intense speed, not by a weakening of gravity at that height. Therefore the height of the water vapor has nothing to do with how gravity pulls on it. Therefore you're very wrong about how much water the atmosphere can hold at reasonable temperatures.Once more, just to be sure - how high you go has nothing at all to do with how much gravity pulls on you. Gravity pulls the same on a spaceship in orbit as on a spaceship parked in a hanger. Is this clear yet? If you're doing science, there's no way (or reason) to factor in the activites of two men who can do something that is impossible according to science. It's just not possible, so why is it relevant to a scientific discussion? I totally disagree. But I think this is a topic for another thread - if you'd like to start it. I mean, the evidence for your view is only one book - the bible. The evidence for ours fills a vast array of books, journals, and web pages, representing maybe 100 or 1000 times as much data as contained in your bible. By just that measure alone we have way more data.And the supernatural has never been shown to exist. Every time it's tested it turns out to be wishful thinking, response bias, hallucination, or even simple fraud. I'll freely admit to my ignorance. I'll take your word for it that the context doesn't support my interpretation as well as it may yours. But you didn't provide the context, did you? You provided just that line as support. And my interpretation is as well supported by that one line as your interpretation.I don't think that bodes well for prophecy. We can't even agree on what that statement is a prophecy of.

quote:

---

Faith is different than trust. You trust bridges, you don't have faith in them. You don't have faith in them because the bridge is avaliable for analysis, testing, inquiry. Can the same be said of your god? I doubt it. Lord knows (if he exists) that I've tried.

---

1. Faith and trust, by definition, go together like a horse and carriage. You can't have one without the other. This's silly time wasting nitpicking on your part.
2. Analysing the supernatural book God's given and the new spiritual birth Christian experience provides ample analysis, testing and inquiry as to the Creator, Jehovah, the god of the Bible. All I can say is that if you've "tried," you were either exposed to a false impression of the Bible or your search was not serious enough. The fact that you reject the prophecies, fulled plain and simple says a lot about your attitude toward the book. I don't want to be called on the carpet here for off topic so that's all I want to say here on this, but I didn't want to ignore your post either.

quote:

---

I'm not familiar with any coal-borne artifacts. I'm certainly not familiar with any that have been truly substantiated as non-fraudulent.

---

You people continually chide me for not educating myself. Maybe you should look search "Carl Baugh" with "coal" and apprise yourself.

quote:

---

Like we said, though, that doesn't change the pressure of the atmosphere.

---

It would if the atmosphere earth's air and the atmosphere were heated up to expand, become less dense and rise to a higher altitude.How about this link:

quote:

---

The barametric pressure tell us the weight of air pushing down. This can be affected by several things: 1. How cold or hot the air is -- remember hot air rises because it is less dense than cold air. Cold air is denser and pushes down harder. 2. How high the column of air is -- the height of the atmosphere is not the same everywhere

​

Because
>atmospheric pressure changes with distance above or below sea level, a
>barometer can also be used to measure altitude. There are two main types of
>barometers: mercury and aneroid.

---

newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00031.htm

quote:

---

Pressure is not related to density or volume - it's weight over area (hence, psi - pounds per square inch). No matter how much the atmosphere expands, it still weighs the same and still covers the same amount of the Earth's surface (all of it). Hence the atmospheric psi is 14.7, no matter how large it expands or how hot it gets.

---

See above link.

quote:

---

Anyway, atmosphere isn't measured in square inches, it's measured in cubic inches. Such a mistake suggests you don't understand the difference between area and volume.

---

You think I'm real stupid, don't you? We're talking atmospheric psi here. Right? Well, I know there's not 14.7 psi on every cubic inch of air in the atmosphere, but the size, temperature, height, and density of the atmosphere do affect the atmospheric psi. (If the size is larger, I meant that means it's less dense and higher with less gravitational pull on it the higher it reaches.} Why can't you educated folk acknowledge those facts?

quote:

---

One thing that's been bothering me the most - you've described the pre-flood envrionment as being really good for life - in fact, you've described it as being like a greenhouse, I believe - all hot and balmy and humid. There are areas like this on Earth, already - tropical areas. Now, despite being the most like your perfect pre-flood environment, these areas of the Earth are known for the most diseases, the most parasites, and the shortest lifespans for human beings. Why would that be? Could it be that hot, humid conditions aren't the best for human habitation?

---

The ideal temperatures aren't at the equator. Try 70 to 80 degrees. Also there was so much lush vegetation goodies to eat that meat wasn't eaten until after the flood according to the Bible. Folks were vegetarians for that reason, as the Bible indicates. They were healthy and lived loooong lives.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-09-2003]

quote:

---

But you didn't provide the context, did you? You provided just that line as support.

---

I provided the text. If you're too lazy to look up the context, I can't help that. Don't you think it'd be a little foolish for me to type up the whole thing and take up the bandwith with this sideline thing?

Since this is a quantifiable value why don't we put it to bed with a number.And, crash, it is a bit lower but not in a way relevent to the argument.The gravitational force bewteen two object is F = (G *m1*m2)/R**2F is the force between them, G is the gravitational constant -- 6.673 * 10 ** -11 m**3 s**-2 Kg**-1.or a tiny number in units of meters cubed divided by seconds squared and KgThe radius of the earth s 6378 km.Since we will keep m1 (the earth's mass of 6 * 10**24 kg) and how space ships mass m2 constant we don't have to worry about themBy what percent will the force change if we move the spaceship from the surface of the earth to 300 km up. (180 miles or LEO)?I figure that is:
(6678 /6378)**2 or the new radius divided by the new one all squared.This is 1.09 or a 9 percent decrease in the force. Not enough to make a real difference in this discussion and not enough to make much different in holding anything up.If the space ship stops it does indeed fall like a stone, it just starts moving a little slower for the first while since it is a little bit farther from the earth's center.