Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Thread Where You Link To Stripe's Best Evidence-Based Posts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Atheists typically do not want a bar of the clear and simple scientific explanations I provide.
    I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to buy the one you're citing, Stipe:

    (Stipe's "scientific" explanation)
    What is interesting is that global warming is great evidence for an ancient global catastrophe. In order to have all this ice to melt, it had to freeze from water onto the continents. In order to get onto the continents it had to evaporate at vastly increased rates. That means the oceans had to be warmer. But at the same time the continents had to be colder than they are today.
    The land is warmer than normal today. And yet increased evaporation is increasing the amount of icecap at the poles.

    You have no idea what you're talking about, Stipe.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #62
      Feel free to address the issue in the relevant thread.

      BTW, you may want to read and appreciate what I am saying before making yourself look even more stupid.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

      Comment


      • #63
        Feel free to address the issue in the relevant thread.
        Your thread. If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have linked to it.

        BTW, you may want to read and appreciate what I am saying before making yourself look even more stupid.
        It's very clear, Stipe. You don't need colder continents; you just need to increase evaporation. More snow will follow, and that will increase the depths of continental ice.

        The conditions existing today directly refute your claim.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Your thread.


          Barbie.

          If it were my thread I could stop you putting as much spam as possible between the end and your embarrassing episode here:

          Originally posted by Stripe
          ...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.
          Originally posted by DavisBJ
          Why do you think this is true?
          Originally posted by The Barbarian
          And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.
          Originally posted by Stripe
          Originally posted by DavisBJ
          You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.
          Barbie's revisionist history.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

          Comment


          • #65
            Barbie is a cherry picking moron.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

            Comment


            • #66
              Understandably, Stipe wants to change the subject; he messed up. But even in his gravitational locking claim, he's wrong.

              The change in rotation rate necessary to tidally lock a body B to a larger body A is caused by the torque applied by A's gravity on bulges it has induced on B by tidal forces.

              Tidal bulges

              A's gravity produces a tidal force on B which distorts its gravitational equilibrium shape slightly so that it becomes elongated along the axis oriented toward A, and conversely, is slightly reduced in dimension in directions perpendicular to this axis. These distortions are known as tidal bulges. When B is not yet tidally locked, the bulges travel over its surface, with one of the two "high" tidal bulges traveling close to the point where body A is overhead. For large astronomical bodies which are near-spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid - i.e., an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.

              Bulge dragging

              The material of B exerts resistance to this periodic reshaping caused by the tidal force. In effect, some time is required to reshape B to the gravitational equilibrium shape, by which time the forming bulges have already been carried some distance away from the A-B axis by B's rotation. Seen from a vantage point in space, the points of maximum bulge extension are displaced from the axis oriented towards A. If B's rotation period is shorter than its orbital period, the bulges are carried forward of the axis oriented towards A in the direction of rotation, whereas if B's rotation period is longer the bulges lag behind instead.

              Resulting torque

              Since the bulges are now displaced from the A-B axis, A's gravitational pull on the mass in them exerts a torque on B. The torque on the A-facing bulge acts to bring B's rotation in line with its orbital period, while the "back" bulge which faces away from A acts in the opposite sense. However, the bulge on the A-facing side is closer to A than the back bulge by a distance of approximately B's diameter, and so experiences a slightly stronger gravitational force and torque. The net resulting torque from both bulges, then, is always in the direction which acts to synchronize B's rotation with its orbital period, leading eventually to tidal locking.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

              It's not any difference in density from side to side (Earth is slowly undergoing gravitational locking with the moon, with no great imbalance)

              It's what Stipe previously claimed could not exist, the tidal forces on the Moon and Earth.

              Stipe doesn't know what he's talking about on that point, either.
              This message is hidden because ...

              Comment


              • #67
                Stipe strikes back:
                Barbie is a cherry picking moron.

                Well, let's take a look at your link:
                Stipe writes:
                God promised He would never again destroy the earth with water. He has firmly established it and set limits for the oceans so that they will never again cover the earth*. Instead He has it saved up for fire. That won't be pleasant.
                Actually, Stipe has made the error of translating "eretz" (land) to mean "the whole Earth." This modern revision leads to the odd conclusion that Israel (eretz Israel) is the entire world.

                Don't think so, Stipe.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Barbie
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    It's how we know Stipe knows he messed up again.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Chock up another one for Stripe:
                      Stripe--
                      |||| |||
                      Athiests--

                      Eretz mean entire. Eretz Israel--Entire nation of Israel. Stripe still gets this one.

                      June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
                        Eretz mean entire.
                        Does it? I keep coming up with "land".
                        The love of learning, the sequestered nooks,
                        And all the sweet serenity of books.

                        --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
                          Chock up another one for Stripe:
                          Stripe--
                          |||| |||
                          Athiests--

                          What atheists?

                          Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
                          Eretz mean entire. Eretz Israel--Entire nation of Israel. Stripe still gets this one.
                          It can mean "entire land". It doesn't always.

                          Chalk it up to lost in translation.
                          β€œTo announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

                          ― Theodore Roosevelt

                          Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Eretz mean entire.
                            Nope. And it's Christians, not just atheists, who know that:

                            Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
                            common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way,

                            From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) -- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.


                            You've been fooled by an ignoramus.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Stripe
                              ...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.
                              Originally posted by DavisBJ
                              Why do you think this is true?
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian
                              And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.
                              Originally posted by Stripe
                              Originally posted by DavisBJ
                              You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.
                              Barbie.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Stipe can quote-mine with the best to them.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X