Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 7:56:48 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

But the literalist young Earth timescale of around 6000 years rules out this possibility. Thus the scale of the mythological flood should be considered given the current land mass of the Earth. This has some interesting implications if we assume that it really did happen. Assuming that there was no magical transformation of the landscape between the time of the flood and now - something reasonable considering the time frame - the floodwaters would have to raise the sea level to height of Mount Everest, at least, in line with the Biblical description stating that the waters came up higher than the highest mountains. This is around 8.84 km above current sea level. Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?
Global flood


Now my question, IF there was a global flood, taking into account the volume of water needed to accomplish that, where the fuck did all the water go? Did god just pump it off to Europa or what?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 8:34:23 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

yer argument doesnt add up. bein wit in a species category is nut da sum total of a life.

no life is infinite so neither would species X be. da world is very old, unless ya happen ta be a young earther so species die out when they cant be sustained.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 8:50:01 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

But the literalist young Earth timescale of around 6000 years rules out this possibility. Thus the scale of the mythological flood should be considered given the current land mass of the Earth. This has some interesting implications if we assume that it really did happen. Assuming that there was no magical transformation of the landscape between the time of the flood and now - something reasonable considering the time frame - the floodwaters would have to raise the sea level to height of Mount Everest, at least, in line with the Biblical description stating that the waters came up higher than the highest mountains. This is around 8.84 km above current sea level. Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?
Global flood


Now my question, IF there was a global flood, taking into account the volume of water needed to accomplish that, where the fuck did all the water go? Did god just pump it off to Europa or what?

It depends on the creationist. IIRC AiG says it was poofed out of existence just like it was poofed into existence. Hovind subscribes to the crackpot idea that the water was a shell of ice around the Earth before the flood and that it went into the ice caps after (he claims there was significant uplift after the flood so less water was needed to cover the planet).

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:01:58 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
That's exactly the sort of drivel I mentioned Velikovsky to take the piss out of...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:04:00 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Regarding the flood myth.

Prior to about 5600 BC, the Bosporus Strait was above sea level and most of the entire area of the present day Black Sea was land with a large fershwater lake. Sea level rose enough until the Mediterranean breached the Bosporus and as a result, about 60,000 Square miles of land was flooded up to a depth of several hundred feet over the next year or so. Due to the location and climate, it would be foolish to think that there wasn't a significant human agrarian population in the area.
Tens of thousands of people living in an area of 60K square miles get flooded out, there are survivors who tell their kids about the great flood (embellishing of course, think 'back when I was your age we walked to school.......') and voila. A "Flood Myth" that has basis in fact.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:14:56 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Regarding the flood myth.

Prior to about 5600 BC, the Bosporus Strait was above sea level and most of the entire area of the present day Black Sea was land with a large fershwater lake. Sea level rose enough until the Mediterranean breached the Bosporus and as a result, about 60,000 Square miles of land was flooded up to a depth of several hundred feet over the next year or so. Due to the location and climate, it would be foolish to think that there wasn't a significant human agrarian population in the area.
Tens of thousands of people living in an area of 60K square miles get flooded out, there are survivors who tell their kids about the great flood (embellishing of course, think 'back when I was your age we walked to school.......') and voila. A "Flood Myth" that has basis in fact.

While possible it is far more likely that the flood myth started with actual seasonal floods on the Tigres and Euphrates. the Noah story seems to be directly taken from a flood story from there.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:40:02 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

But the literalist young Earth timescale of around 6000 years rules out this possibility. Thus the scale of the mythological flood should be considered given the current land mass of the Earth. This has some interesting implications if we assume that it really did happen. Assuming that there was no magical transformation of the landscape between the time of the flood and now - something reasonable considering the time frame - the floodwaters would have to raise the sea level to height of Mount Everest, at least, in line with the Biblical description stating that the waters came up higher than the highest mountains. This is around 8.84 km above current sea level. Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?
Global flood


Now my question, IF there was a global flood, taking into account the volume of water needed to accomplish that, where the fuck did all the water go? Did god just pump it off to Europa or what?

Well the tallest mountains on the planet are under water and the average depth of the ocean is over 3,700 meters. So the oceans contain approx. 343 quintillion gallons (a billion trillions) which may or may not...answer your question.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:53:16 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

But the literalist young Earth timescale of around 6000 years rules out this possibility. Thus the scale of the mythological flood should be considered given the current land mass of the Earth. This has some interesting implications if we assume that it really did happen. Assuming that there was no magical transformation of the landscape between the time of the flood and now - something reasonable considering the time frame - the floodwaters would have to raise the sea level to height of Mount Everest, at least, in line with the Biblical description stating that the waters came up higher than the highest mountains. This is around 8.84 km above current sea level. Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?
Global flood


Now my question, IF there was a global flood, taking into account the volume of water needed to accomplish that, where the fuck did all the water go? Did god just pump it off to Europa or what?

Well the tallest mountains on the planet are under water and the average depth of the ocean is over 3,700 meters. So the oceans contain approx. 343 quintillion gallons (a billion trillions) which may or may not...answer your question.


In order to create a global flood that would put a boat at the 13000' level of Mt Ararat where they claim to have found the Ark, you would have to make the average depth of the oceans 8,600 meters and also cover the Earth's land area to a depth of 3100 meters.

This would increase the volume of the oceans to 797 Quintillion gallons with an additional 227 Quintillion gallons covering the land to a depth of 3100M (approx 13000 ft)

This gives a grand total of 681 Quintillion gallons of water that had to magically disappear to somewhere.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 9:59:15 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

yer argument doesnt add up. bein wit in a species category is nut da sum total of a life.

no life is infinite so neither would species X be. da world is very old, unless ya happen ta be a young earther so species die out when they cant be sustained.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. There is evidence of at least five mass extinctions back 434 million years. Google it.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 10:05:44 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

yer argument doesnt add up. bein wit in a species category is nut da sum total of a life.

no life is infinite so neither would species X be. da world is very old, unless ya happen ta be a young earther so species die out when they cant be sustained.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. There is evidence of at least five mass extinctions back 434 million years. Google it.

hey temper temper now. yer tryin ta argue dat da scale of species extinctions refutes da argument bout God dat daddysatre made. da point is dat he waz talkin bout individual lives nut species an' all lives are finite so everything dies no matter.

next will ya be sayin God doesnt care coz we're nut all immortal? does i have ta explain ta ya some more?

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/12/2013 10:11:00 AM >


_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 10:14:59 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

yer argument doesnt add up. bein wit in a species category is nut da sum total of a life.

no life is infinite so neither would species X be. da world is very old, unless ya happen ta be a young earther so species die out when they cant be sustained.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. There is evidence of at least five mass extinctions back 434 million years. Google it.

hey temper temper now. yer tryin ta argue dat da scale of species extinctions refutes da argument bout God dat daddysatre made. da point is dat he waz talkin bout individual lives nut species an' all lives are finite so everything dies no matter.

next will ya be sayin God doesnt care coz we're nut all immortal? does i have ta explain ta ya some more?

Daddy S used the word "creatures" . . . not individuals. The distinction is your interpretation v mine. When discussing Evolution we are not discussing individuals. You should know better.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 10:20:47 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Daddy S used the word "creatures" . . . not individuals. The distinction is your interpretation v mine. When discussing Evolution we are not discussing individuals. You should know better.

nah he used it in da sense of individuals. he said "I also believe that it's God's way of protecting creatures from the hazards of living." in jus' da same way as da idea of da big man lookin' down on us all. anyhoo hope ds can clear it up.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/12/2013 10:23:40 AM >


_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 11:33:54 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
A couple of points here.

1) During each epoch of history on the earth, there was a group of animals that dominated the planet suitable for that particular phase in earth's development.
As the planet developed, the dominate life form changed.
At one point, there were 8 foot long scorpions living on the planet, able to survive because of the higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.

2) Mammals appeared during the age of the dinosaurs, but were very small and nocturnal.

3) After the combination of events that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, mammals rose to prominence.

4) With the rise of mammals, primates grew to prominence allowing for hominids to evolve.

5) Over tens of millions of years, hominids evolved into humans.

6) Posting in English to approximate an accent makes it hard to understand the point of the post and is mostly annoying rather than funny.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 11:44:23 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Mammals appeared during the age of the dinosaurs, but were very small and nocturnal.

I thought the earliest mammal fossils predated the big extinction event that gave the dinosaurs legroom to evolve at the end of the triassic?
(No argument with any of the rest, though.)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:06:52 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The lunatic pseudohistorian in question was famous for psedoscientific bullshit about the great flood that was mentioned in the Bible/drowned Atlantis/drowned Lemuria/other being caused by a cosmic catastrophe so risible that they couldn't have got it onto an episode of the X Files.

Maybe you could try googling Worlds In Collision rather than snarking.

Velikovsky argued "that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times." Simply wondering whether the presence of flood myths among cultures spanning the globe might have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations is, by any measure, a long way from arguing it as a fucking fact with planetary collisions as its explanation.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/12/2013 12:10:42 PM >

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:11:46 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The lunatic pseudohistorian in question was famous for psedoscientific bullshit about the great flood that was mentioned in the Bible/drowned Atlantis/drowned Lemuria/other being caused by a cosmic catastrophe so risible that they couldn't have got it onto an episode of the X Files.

Maybe you could try googling Worlds In Collision rather than snarking.

Velikovsky argued "that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times." Simply wondering whether the presence of flood myths among cultures spanning the globe might have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations is, by any measure, a long way from arguing it as a fact and proposing collisions with other fucking planets.

K.






Okay, the Earth collided with a large planet that consisted of a small core and a huge amount of water?

The simple fact that the Earth has never had enough water to flood the entire planet enough to cover Mt Everest. If it did, and all that water evaporated, then we would not be here because we would drown just by breathing. Not to mention the atmospheric pressure would be very high.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:12:00 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
He proposed a near miss, not a collision.
People all over the globe have flood myths because flooding happens all over the globe. Arguing that said myths are proof of a long forgotten prehistoric catastrophe, on the other hand, is an excuse to invent bullshit that can't be verified one way or the other.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:16:25 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The lunatic pseudohistorian in question was famous for psedoscientific bullshit about the great flood that was mentioned in the Bible/drowned Atlantis/drowned Lemuria/other being caused by a cosmic catastrophe so risible that they couldn't have got it onto an episode of the X Files.

Maybe you could try googling Worlds In Collision rather than snarking.

Velikovsky argued "that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times." Simply wondering whether the presence of flood myths among cultures spanning the globe might have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations is, by any measure, a long way from arguing it as a fact and proposing collisions with other fucking planets.

K.






Okay, the Earth collided with a large planet that consisted of a small core and a huge amount of water?

The simple fact that the Earth has never had enough water to flood the entire planet enough to cover Mt Everest. If it did, and all that water evaporated, then we would not be here because we would drown just by breathing. Not to mention the atmospheric pressure would be very high.

It appears that the crackpot Velikovsky knows nothing about orbital mechanics.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:18:50 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The lunatic pseudohistorian in question was famous for psedoscientific bullshit about the great flood that was mentioned in the Bible/drowned Atlantis/drowned Lemuria/other being caused by a cosmic catastrophe so risible that they couldn't have got it onto an episode of the X Files.

Maybe you could try googling Worlds In Collision rather than snarking.

Velikovsky argued "that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times." Simply wondering whether the presence of flood myths among cultures spanning the globe might have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations is, by any measure, a long way from arguing it as a fact and proposing collisions with other fucking planets.

K.






Okay, the Earth collided with a large planet that consisted of a small core and a huge amount of water?

The simple fact that the Earth has never had enough water to flood the entire planet enough to cover Mt Everest. If it did, and all that water evaporated, then we would not be here because we would drown just by breathing. Not to mention the atmospheric pressure would be very high.

It appears that the crackpot Velikovsky knows nothing about orbital mechanics.

Or anything else besides psychiatry, which isn't much help when writing about cosmology.


_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:20:21 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
It appears that the crackpot Velikovsky knows nothing about orbital mechanics.


Shit! I don't either. How many mechanics are estimated to be in orbit, then?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109