Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

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

  • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I'll add the videos to my queue


    but I have seen the hydroplate theory before
    Not explained like in the above playlist.

    and the issue you raised in response to Stripe's discussion applies to it as well.
    No, It doesn't.

    Well, rather, the energy is there, but it's directed upwards, and the process cools the earth, rather than heats it up.

    The physics involved simply don't add up,
    Then your math is wrong, or your missing something.

    particularly in the amount of energy released in such an event if you try to squeeze it all into 40 days or a year. Noah and his ark would have been steam broiled.
    Nope. You're forgetting that when a fluid expands, it cools, drastically.

    Ever used a can of air to clean your computer? with the energy being released, does the can get really hot or really cold?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

      Well, rather, the energy is there, but it's directed upwards, and the process cools the earth, rather than heats it up.
      Nope. You're forgetting that when a fluid expands, it cools, drastically.

      Ever used a can of air to clean your computer? with the energy being released, does the can get really hot or really cold?
      It cools initially yes but there is still waste heat in the whole event. And there are other problems like where did the water go, the seaworthiness of the ark, etc. I'll look at the videos as I have the time and see.
      "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

      Comment


      • So I did some reading on the problems with the hydroplate hypothesis, in particular, the issue of energy release. The proponents of the hypothesis have a problem in that they tried to lump too many eggs in one basket and claim that the 'event' is responsible for most of the debris in the inner solar system asteroids, comets, etc. as well as the craters on the moon. This, unfortunately, give physicists some hard data to calculate the range of how much energy was being released in the 'fountains'.

        You come up with figures that rival the energy output of the Sun on a planet a tiny fraction of the Sun's size. Even allowing for a significant portion of that energy being directed at kinetic effects like slinging soon to be asteroids, quite a bit of it would have been transferred into the planet's air and water. This is obvious because if it had not, the planet would have torn itself apart in imitation of Star War's Alderan. That sets a range that must have been transferred as heat energy to the planet that makes it plain that no life would have survived this event no matter how sound the wood used.
        "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
          So I did some reading on the problems with the hydroplate hypothesis, in particular, the issue of energy release. The proponents of the hypothesis have a problem in that they tried to lump too many eggs in one basket and claim that the 'event' is responsible for most of the debris in the inner solar system asteroids, comets, etc. as well as the craters on the moon. This, unfortunately, give physicists some hard data to calculate the range of how much energy was being released in the 'fountains'.

          You come up with figures that rival the energy output of the Sun on a planet a tiny fraction of the Sun's size. Even allowing for a significant portion of that energy being directed at kinetic effects like slinging soon to be asteroids, quite a bit of it would have been transferred into the planet's air and water. This is obvious because if it had not, the planet would have torn itself apart in imitation of Star War's Alderan. That sets a range that must have been transferred as heat energy to the planet that makes it plain that no life would have survived this event no matter how sound the wood used.
          Bryan Nickel has worked in the missile division of a US aerospace firm/contractor for 18 years.

          Walt Brown has a PhD from MIT from the mechanical engineering in the Heat Transfer division.

          You'd think he would know a little about how his theory works, especially when it comes to heat problems.

          Coming up in March, there's a series Bob Enyart is going to be doing with Bryan Nickel on the Hydroplate Theory heat problem.

          Info here, listen to the show starting at 10m 40s in:
          https://kgov.com/bel/20190222

          Comment


          • Yes, it seems they have been revising the hypothesis to try and address the critics observations but it often only makes things worse. Brown has been steadily increasing the size of the crust layer over the waters to try and explain the mass issues with the number of objects he claims were thrown into space and the actual masses of objects out there. But that only makes the energy and heat computations worse.

            The entire disaster scenario makes the seaworthiness issue of the ark worse too. A wooden structure the size of the ark would have leakage and structural integrity problems on a flat sea with no wind. Put it in the middle of a tempest this event would create and it would be reduced to splinters in seconds.
            "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

            Comment


            • I believe God literally exists.

              I believe God has the ability to prove His existence ANY time He would like to do so.

              He doesn't.

              Why?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dartman View Post
                I believe God literally exists.
                of course He does

                I believe God has the ability to prove His existence ANY time He would like to do so.

                He doesn't.
                sure He does, every day, all day

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                  Do you?


                  Are you still pushing the insane notion that the Earth's rotational rate could increase?
                  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


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post


                    Are you still pushing the insane notion that the Earth's rotational rate could increase?
                    I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours. And that the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane. A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it but if you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.
                    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                      I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours.


                      That the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane.
                      Physics, bro.

                      A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it.
                      Seismicity does it. However, these things work slowly. They could never achieve today's ituation from a million-year day. You keep up this argument; it just shows how little you understand about such ideas.

                      If you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.
                      Nope. Directionality is important. The flood did affect the Earth's rotation, but not in the way you imagine or to the extent that you need.

                      Simple physics dictates that if the Earth is about 6,000 years old, the days at the start were pretty much the same length as days today. Saying otherwise is science fiction.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                        I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours.
                        Because of the context in which the word "day" is used in scripture to describe the creation week.

                        And that the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane.
                        You'd have to find a way for that to fit into whatever model you use for solar system formation.

                        Our model expects that God made everything good, including the rotation and orbit of the celestial bodies, that the earth had a 24 hour day, and a 360 day year, but when the fountains of the great deep broke forth, because of the physics involved, the earth slowed by a few minutes, its orbit was pushed out by a little more than five days, and the moon was bombarded (moreso on the near side) by the debris ejected from the earth.

                        A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it but if you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.
                        I recommend you watch the playlist I gave you. It'll answer that challenge far better than I can.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post


                          Physics, bro.

                          Seismicity does it. However, these things work slowly. They could never achieve today's ituation from a million-year day. You keep up this argument; it just shows how little you understand about such ideas.



                          Nope. Directionality is important. The flood did affect the Earth's rotation, but not in the way you imagine or to the extent that you need.

                          Simple physics dictates that if the Earth is about 6,000 years old, the days at the start were pretty much the same length as days today. Saying otherwise is science fiction.
                          And here is where you have a problem, you are anticipating where you think I was heading with my question and are arguing against that. I can understand the confusion. But now you have at least partially answered the question.
                          "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                            You are anticipating where you think I was heading with my question and are arguing against that.


                            Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                            It is entirely possible to have a planetary day that lasts millions of years.
                            This is what I'm responding to. Physics dictates that the rotational speed of the Earth was never this slow. Unless you have a miracle in mind.

                            I can understand the confusion.


                            But now you have at least partially answered the question.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                              How does that work exactly? I know how Answers in Genesis thinks it works but all that shows us is that AIG didn't give more than five seconds of thought and no amount of actual testing and evaluation to their hypothesis.
                              I could say the same about evolutionary geologists.
                              Why is there no evidence of millions of years of erosion between the strata in the Grand Canyon?
                              Why are there polystrate fossils in Yellowstone that show no sign of erosion from one stratum to another?
                              Learn to read what is written.

                              _____
                              The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                              ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                                Most Christians aren't hardcore, fundamentalist zealots where they would wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing but they exist.
                                Yes, most Christians are not like the Lunatic Leftist Liberals who wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing.
                                Learn to read what is written.

                                _____
                                The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                                ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X