User Tag List

Page 114 of 118 FirstFirst ... 1464104111112113114115116117 ... LastLast
Results 1,696 to 1,710 of 1765

Thread: Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

  1. #1696
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    Quote Originally Posted by redfern View Post
    CM, from the content I see in your most recent big thermo post, I suspect you have been subjecting yourself to a quick refresher in what thermo really says. But alas, like many cram study sessions, that just isn’t a good way to firm up your understanding of a subject.

    And I have to offer caveat for my absence over a few days. Crossing lotsa time zones, - trains, planes, and automobiles - are not conducive to my being promptly responsive to TOL threads. But at least I suspect the Laws of Thermo are the same here as they are far away where I was a few days ago.

    So now back to the subject at hand. You posted:



    I appreciate the graph and the accompanying comments. You are right when you say “This is the typical graph for phase changes of water at one atmosphere”, and that means this graph is very relevant to your claim about water flashing to steam that spawned my jumping into this thread.

    But … I can’t resist putting this in here – Look near the bottom of the graph. In blue it says “heat of vaporization”. Now look directly above that to where the dark horizontal line is that depicts the vaporization (and condensation). How to label that line – no problem – since we are depicting the heat of vaporization, we’ll label this line as “e + vaporization = evaporization” line. Uhhh – no, like it said in blue near the bottom, that is called just “vaporization”, with no “e” on the front. Maybe whoever made up that term was thinking of “evaporation”, which is almost the same as vaporization, but at lower temperature. Where did you find this graph anyway, at “Uncle Clem’s School of Thermodynamics for Moonshiners?”

    The very next thing I see in your post says:



    Speak for yourself. In spite of your strenuous efforts to try to keep the focus on perceived faults in Walt’s ideas, until you convince me that you get this regime of thermo right, I am not inclined to trust your judgment in Walt’s far more esoteric regimes of temperature and pressure.

    I have pleaded with you to go the math route on the water flashing to steam question, only to have you say that I should do the math, and then you again assure us that you took classes in this stuff, and that this stuff applies in systems like the Rankine Cycle. But oodles of engineers and others who fundamentally rely on physics have to take classes in which thermo is taught. A whole lotta them think that thermo is not gonna be something they will be dealing with after graduating, and so they just muddle through it, and most of the time they are right. But occasionally one of them finds himself involved in a TOL discussion. Not a good time to confidently assert you know thermo, when you’re one of the masses that just muddled thru it in college.

    I hope to soon move past this thermo issue with you, but first still some residual red flags I have on what you have said.



    I don’t think I specified with how fast I heated the water. Can you show me in the thermo equations where that is gonna be a factor? All I am concerned with is the water at the conditions you originally mentioned – 212 F (and I was willing to go above that temp just to be sure). If you want me to heat it in a hurry with using a bank of welder’s blowtorches, fine.



    Do you think ignoring the heating process up to the 212 temp, and only looking at the thermo involved above 212 is gonna change how much of water flashes to steam? [I was looking at putting in a tankless water heater. The burneres in those things are huge, 100,000 BTU and up. The definition of a BTU is the amount of energy required to heat 1 pound of water by one degree Farenhite. So wheter I take one hour to heat one pound of water or one minute to one pound of water by one degree, it takes one BTU. (Note: I am assuming a prefect system that has no losses.) So no, the heating process wil not change the amount of energy (temperature) in the water. Water at 212°F is 212°F whether heated in a microwave in 2 minutes or on the stove for 10 minutes.]



    And that pretty well states our point of divergence. More later on that. [I agree that the energy required to convert water to steam must come from someplace. In the case of super heated water, the vaparoization energy will come from the liquid itself. That is why, in the videos below, you will see water instanatly boil yet not all the water converting to steam.]

    Tell you what – I will move on from this thermos business if you go with me through a specific mathematical example. If you want, I will do the math, and you will either concur or show where I am in error, OK? Here is what I am proposing, based on your recent comments. You said:



    Gotcha. I’m going to put a beautiful fluorescent label on the lid that says “New Soccer & Rugby Equipment Inside – Free”, so Stripe will be the one taking the lid off. We will start with say, 10 pounds of water (I pick pounds instead of kg or liters or whatever just because it simplifies some of the calculations). The water will initially be at just above freezing – 32 F. (Starting with cold water also simplifies some of the math.) I’m gonna measure the heat in BTUs, again for mathematical simplicity. If you object to any of these units, let me know and I will use units you prefer, and will toss in the necessary conversion factors. For the comfort of the readership who don’t deal much with units of heat, a moderate sized home water heater will need to use about 35,000 BTUs each day for showers, baths, laundry, etc.

    We will use a heat source that can supply enough heat to raise the temperature of the entire 10 lbs of water by 10 degrees F each minute. Gonna keep cooking that water right up till the water it is at the 300 F you mentioned (water will be under pressure, of course). Since you earlier said you were “talking about a closed system that is already well above 212 degrees”, I propose we keep this thing at that 300 F level for 16 solid weeks, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, long enough to really see if “there is enough energy in the water to more than account for the latent heat of vaporization need to convert liquid water to steam.” [Cute but irrelevant, the amount of time is irrelevant, it is the temperature that is the measure of energy..]

    Now my first question to you is, since “some portion of that water will flash to steam”, roughly how much do you say will flash to steam when we have Stripe take the lid off that pressure cooker? An answer that is within 10% will be fine, in pounds or kg or whatever of water that flashes. What say ye? Give us your guess and let’s then do the math.
    I never said that all the water would flash to steam. Some part of the water will flash to steam so that the system reaches equilibrium. Here is a fun little experiment that can be done with a microwave. I do not recommend that you try this. This actually happened to my mother and she got second degree burns on her hand because of it.



    So, this serves as proof of concept - super heated water will instantly boil when disturbed. Instantly boiling means that vapor bubbles (steam) will form and expand throughout the liquid resulting in the video we see.

    We see that as the super-heated water exists to atmosphere, a portion of it does, in fact, flash to steam taking away enough energy so that the condensate becomes water at one atmosphere.

    One last chart for you to consider in your thoughts.


    The only area of the chart that is of interest is the supercritical area. This is a thread about whether it makes sense to believe in a young Earth and it is based on Walt Brown's book, at least in part. Walt is postulating water in a supercritical state contained below the crust. The question is what happen to a supercritical fluid when in is released. You are more than welcome to do all the math you want on the system you described above and it doesn't matter. You seem to understand that you don't want to be the one to take the lid off the pressure cooker. Why not? In any case, the total energy in the supercritical fluid is the starting point for Walt's hypothesis. The question becomes, what happens to that energy when the containment vessel (the Earth's crust) is rapidly breached.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  2. #1697
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    For some, Mythbusters may not be scientifically rigorous enough so here is another video done by a PE that looks at flash steam. Listen carefully to his explanation.

    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  3. #1698
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    354
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 92 Times in 77 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13862
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I never said that all the water would flash to steam. Some part of the water will flash to steam so that the system reaches equilibrium. …
    Dear Cabinetmaker,

    I may indeed have misunderstood what you initially said about flashing to steam. But let me present (one more time) your exact words that first caught my attention:

    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    … Water boils at 212 F. If you heat water above that and use pressure to keep it from boiling, it will remain in a liquid state. When that pressure is released, those water molecules will instantly flash to steam. Simple physics. Basic thermodynamics.
    You talk about heating water to above boiling and having it under pressure, and then you say “, those water molecules will instantly flash to steam”. Can you point out any words in your statement that would lead one to understand “those water molecules” refers to just a subset of the water molecules that were heated? It is your sloppiness in your phrasing that caused the issue.

    But more significantly, I have encouraged you to show that you actually have an accurate understanding of what you term “Simple physics. Basic Thermodynamics.” But you get defensive and make grandiose claims that you took classes in this stuff, and worked problems like this, yet when I repeatedly ask you to actually show the math on a pretty simple problem, over and over you respond with nothing more than assertions and bluster. Maybe that is how you got through your thermo classes – when the test question asked “How many joules of energy”, you respond with an essay about the assumptions involved in the question, and the need to focus on some extreme pressures and temperatures rather than on what the question said.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a well-meaning old-earther who has found it sufficient to try to bluff your way out of proving your competence. Either that, or … maybe you are an old-earther in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was an American patriot.

    I fully expect that when we get down in the trenches of battle, and I see you declare that you are going to blast Walt Brown, you grab a bazooka and hoist it to your shoulder, then I am gonna yell “Stop, you don’t know what you’re doing.”. You will smirk and say you know all about bazookas, and you will say, “See when I pull this trigger, a blast of fire will come out this tube and scare the bejeebers outta Walt. And I will respond by explaining that blast of fire is from the back end of the missile in the tube, meaning the missile is going to come out at me, not Walt. My sincere recommendation is you be forbidden from wielding any weapon more lethal than a butter knife.

    And, by the way – as per that 300 F pressure cooker - the one with the new sign on the lid saying “New Rugby & Only Rugby Equipment Inside – Free” - only about 9% of the water will flash to steam.

    But thanks for playing, anyway.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to redfern For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 10th, 2018)

  5. #1699
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,215
    Thanks
    305
    Thanked 10,321 Times in 7,594 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by redfern View Post
    Dear Cabinetmaker,

    I may indeed have misunderstood what you initially said about flashing to steam. But let me present (one more time) your exact words that first caught my attention:

    You talk about heating water to above boiling and having it under pressure, and then you say “, those water molecules will instantly flash to steam”. Can you point out any words in your statement that would lead one to understand “those water molecules” refers to just a subset of the water molecules that were heated? It is your sloppiness in your phrasing that caused the issue.

    But more significantly, I have encouraged you to show that you actually have an accurate understanding of what you term “Simple physics. Basic Thermodynamics.” But you get defensive and make grandiose claims that you took classes in this stuff, and worked problems like this, yet when I repeatedly ask you to actually show the math on a pretty simple problem, over and over you respond with nothing more than assertions and bluster. Maybe that is how you got through your thermo classes – when the test question asked “How many joules of energy”, you respond with an essay about the assumptions involved in the question, and the need to focus on some extreme pressures and temperatures rather than on what the question said.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a well-meaning old-earther who has found it sufficient to try to bluff your way out of proving your competence. Either that, or … maybe you are an old-earther in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was an American patriot.

    I fully expect that when we get down in the trenches of battle, and I see you declare that you are going to blast Walt Brown, you grab a bazooka and hoist it to your shoulder, then I am gonna yell “Stop, you don’t know what you’re doing.”. You will smirk and say you know all about bazookas, and you will say, “See when I pull this trigger, a blast of fire will come out this tube and scare the bejeebers outta Walt. And I will respond by explaining that blast of fire is from the back end of the missile in the tube, meaning the missile is going to come out at me, not Walt. My sincere recommendation is you be forbidden from wielding any weapon more lethal than a butter knife.

    And, by the way – as per that 300 F pressure cooker - the one with the new sign on the lid saying “New Rugby & Only Rugby Equipment Inside – Free” - only about 9% of the water will flash to steam.

    But thanks for playing, anyway.
    Where do I sign?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 11th, 2018)

  7. #1700
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,215
    Thanks
    305
    Thanked 10,321 Times in 7,594 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

    My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

    Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?
    Gee, that Vulcan fella didn't last long, did he.





    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 11th, 2018)

  9. #1701
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    Quote Originally Posted by redfern View Post
    Dear Cabinetmaker,

    I may indeed have misunderstood what you initially said about flashing to steam. But let me present (one more time) your exact words that first caught my attention:



    You talk about heating water to above boiling and having it under pressure, and then you say “, those water molecules will instantly flash to steam”. Can you point out any words in your statement that would lead one to understand “those water molecules” refers to just a subset of the water molecules that were heated? It is your sloppiness in your phrasing that caused the issue.

    But more significantly, I have encouraged you to show that you actually have an accurate understanding of what you term “Simple physics. Basic Thermodynamics.” But you get defensive and make grandiose claims that you took classes in this stuff, and worked problems like this, yet when I repeatedly ask you to actually show the math on a pretty simple problem, over and over you respond with nothing more than assertions and bluster. Maybe that is how you got through your thermo classes – when the test question asked “How many joules of energy”, you respond with an essay about the assumptions involved in the question, and the need to focus on some extreme pressures and temperatures rather than on what the question said.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a well-meaning old-earther who has found it sufficient to try to bluff your way out of proving your competence. Either that, or … maybe you are an old-earther in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was an American patriot.

    I fully expect that when we get down in the trenches of battle, and I see you declare that you are going to blast Walt Brown, you grab a bazooka and hoist it to your shoulder, then I am gonna yell “Stop, you don’t know what you’re doing.”. You will smirk and say you know all about bazookas, and you will say, “See when I pull this trigger, a blast of fire will come out this tube and scare the bejeebers outta Walt. And I will respond by explaining that blast of fire is from the back end of the missile in the tube, meaning the missile is going to come out at me, not Walt. My sincere recommendation is you be forbidden from wielding any weapon more lethal than a butter knife.

    And, by the way – as per that 300 F pressure cooker - the one with the new sign on the lid saying “New Rugby & Only Rugby Equipment Inside – Free” - only about 9% of the water will flash to steam.

    But thanks for playing, anyway.
    I can't help but notice that you have still not addressed the actual conditions that have been postulated. Why?

    Nearly 1 pound of water flashes to steam. Since you are abviously an expert, please explain to us what that looks like. Does it all happen at the surface? Does it happen at the bottom? Through out the liquid?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  10. #1702
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    354
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 92 Times in 77 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13862
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I can't help but notice that you have still not addressed the actual conditions that have been postulated. Why?

    I have answered that several times already. if you didn't listen before, I am not interested in repeating what you have already ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Since you are abviously an expert,

    I am not an expert, and have made no claim to be. As you yourself made clear, thermodynamics problems like the one you refused to solve are commonly solved in classes. That says a lot about how competent you seem to be in the subject.


    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    please explain to us what that looks like. Does it all happen at the surface? Does it happen at the bottom? Through out the liquid?

    In my first post to you I spoke a bit about this. No need for me to repeat what you can go back and read for yourself.


    Judging by this post from you, you seem to have nothing of substance to offer, so you are pretty much just whimpering. if you have something to say that is pertinent, then please feel free, but otherwise I see no need to respond to you.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to redfern For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 11th, 2018)

  12. #1703
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,215
    Thanks
    305
    Thanked 10,321 Times in 7,594 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by redfern View Post
    I see no need to respond to you.
    Umm, don't look now, but...



    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 11th, 2018)

  14. #1704
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    Here is an article that looks at the claims of the hydroplate model proposed by Walt Brown and what we actually see in the world around us. I doubt Walt's work and believe the Earth is quite old because what we see and measure does not align with Walt's model. Of particular interest to @redfen, you might take a look at the section titled Earth Boiled, Steamed and Roasted.

    Walt's model in interesting but it is based on so many unfounded assumptions that it stretches credulity to the breaking point.

    Read the article or don't, but it does answer the question asked in the title for this thread: Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism? Yes.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to CabinetMaker For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 13th, 2018)

  16. #1705
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,215
    Thanks
    305
    Thanked 10,321 Times in 7,594 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism? Yes.
    That is what scientists do: They test ideas.

    The proper scientific approach to Dr Brown's ideas is to doubt their veracity and look for evidence to overturn them.

    However, you are solely interested in making sure they never get seriously looked at.

    If you cared about a sensible discussion, you would read your link and present a couple of objections.

    Instead, you consistently get nothing right.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2018)

  18. #1706
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    That is what scientists do: They test ideas.

    The proper scientific approach to Dr Brown's ideas is to doubt their veracity and look for evidence to overturn them.

    However, you are solely interested in making sure they never get seriously looked at.

    If you cared about a sensible discussion, you would read your link and present a couple of objections.

    Instead, you consistently get nothing right.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    You didn't even click on the link, did you. If you had bothered to open the link and read the article you would see that scientists have indeed tested Walt's ideas. They have done calculations based on actual observed data (evidence) and compared with what Walt predicted. Walt's ideas did not fair well.

    I have looked at Walt's ideas quite seriously. Based on what I learned in school, I found his ideas to be over contrived when compared with what science has discovered over the centuries. It is not me that is afraid of looking at Walt's ideas seriously, it is you who are afraid to look honestly at other scientists have said about Walt's work.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to CabinetMaker For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 13th, 2018)

  20. #1707
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,215
    Thanks
    305
    Thanked 10,321 Times in 7,594 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    You didn't even click on the link, did you.
    Read it a few times over the years. Have you?

    I have looked at Walt's ideas quite seriously.
    Except you can never describe them with any accuracy.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2018)

  22. #1708
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307055
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Read it a few times over the years. Have you?
    Yes. I found it to be quite interesting.

    Except you can never describe them with any accuracy.
    That is because they do not accurately line up with what we know about the physical sciences. I can use those sciences to make predictions about how things will work under specific conditions. THe math ALWAYS works. Until it is applied Walt's ideas.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to CabinetMaker For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 13th, 2018)

  24. #1709
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,053
    Thanks
    22,734
    Thanked 6,364 Times in 4,041 Posts

    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147598
    In other news...

    Scientists baffled after miners in Canada find dinosaur mummy (yes, mummy) while digging for oil.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...sil-discovery/

    https://shopjurassic.com/blogs/post/dinosaur-mummy

    From the second link:

    "The question of how the dinosaur could have remained so intact after it was unearthed still baffles scientists, although according to National Geographic, researchers are putting forth the theory that the creature may have been carried away to sea by a “flooded river” where it sank."

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Stripe (August 16th, 2018)

  26. #1710
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,053
    Thanks
    22,734
    Thanked 6,364 Times in 4,041 Posts

    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147598
    And here the best we YEC's were hoping for was original biological material. They just found a(n almost whole) DINOSAUR MUMMY!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us