Real Science Friday: Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF

[Jukia]

No no no, you do not understand it ergo nature did it. Get your straw men right!

My, you aren't suggesting that your god is just a strawman in a debate are you? I mean, that's OK with me, but I suspect you do not want to go that far.

 

[The Barbarian]

This has been posted before, but it bears repeating...

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram Libri Duodecim

 

[Stripe]

I'll get started on it.

:thumb:

It's Christian theology, so you're going to be seeing a lot of stuff for the first time.

That's fine. :up:

I'll try to make it as simple as i can.

:thumb:

Genesis contains an allegory for creation.

How are we meant to interpret that allegory? If Genesis 1:6-8 is allegory, what does it refer to and what does it mean?

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.​

No. Big light in the sky doesn't make it morning. Sun appearing makes it morning. Likewise, sky getting dark doesn't make it evening. Sun setting makes it evening. If your theology requires that you redefine words, isn't that a tip-off that there's something wrong with it?

Now you're just making stuff up. :nono:

Augustine was an orthodox Christian

Who? :idunno:

(Augustine accepts the idea of literal water above the firmament)

So do I. :idunno:

It's all the other weird stuff he needs to adjust. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Big light in the sky doesn't make it morning. Sun appearing makes it morning. Likewise, sky getting dark doesn't make it evening. Sun setting makes it evening. If your theology requires that you redefine words, isn't that a tip-off that there's something wrong with it?

Now you're just making stuff up.

Nope. If you want to communicate in English, you'll have to use words as they are used in English.

Barbarian explains why Augustine didn't accept Genesis as history:
Augustine was an orthodox Christian.

Who?

Augustine.

Barbarian observes:
(Augustine accepts the idea of literal water above the firmament)

So do I.

But in his time, it wasn't known to be impossible. St. Augustine said that Scripture, when a literalist reading contradicted the truth, had to be taken as figurative.

The "weird stuff" you're talking about is Christian belief. You're about to toss out Christianity to save your belief in creationism.

 

[Stripe]

But in his time, it wasn't known to be impossible.

It's not impossible today.

The "weird stuff" you're talking about is Christian belief.

An "increase and extension of the watery element" is Christian belief?

You're weird. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth.

This should be fun.

 

[DavisBJ]

Comments directed to a Christian who is engaged in science:

Tom, I haven’t heard directly from you for a while, and really didn’t miss you much. Your forte is a collection of psychological sound bites babbling about world views and truth – which I have no interest in. The epitome of the science I ever got out of you was your declaration that you determined that animals don’t have a sense of humor because your cow didn’t laugh at your joke.

Your lack of reading comprehension in this post is shown by the fact that you answer as though some of the responses I had came from my pen, when as I stated in my introductory sentence, they were all directed to a Christian. So your slaps are actually at a fellow believer – a fellow who has the science, faith, and understanding you lack.

So generally, I will leave your misdirected arrows alone as they sail on past. A couple I will comment on.

I don't want to get into an extended dialogue. I have some health issues I must deal with.

How do you think your health issues compare with others, such as the innocent 6-month old Midianite baby girl you said you would shove your sword through had you lived in the Old Testament world?

I wondered that myself. When a T-Rex bone is cut in two and red tissue is found, shouldn't scientists be asked to reconsider their argument that dinosaurs died out 65 millions years ago.

On this subject later in this thread you said:

Your worldview forces you to believe the impossible--that the red tissue in the bone can last for 65 million years without drying up. I'm sorry. I don't have much faith.

Again you are focused on worldviews and faith, when you can’t even get the science details right. Maybe you are jealous of the attention that Enyart got recently by declaring that squid ink in fossils was liquid.

If you want to read an interesting debate on the existence of God, google The Great Debate between atheist Dr. Stein and Dr. Bahnsen.

Debates are great at showing which side has the most effective method of presentation, but they stink as a way to determine truth. Major concepts in science have to prove themselves in the lab. It is clear why theists love debates as opposed to labs, debates are where their sound bites really impress.

 

[Stripe]

Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth. This should be fun.

It wasn't.

Now - do you have an answer for this or are you just going to keep dodging:

What does your "allegory" refer to? Allegories have meaning and are based on known ideas so that they can be understood. What does this passage mean if it is allegory?

Genesis 1:6-8
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.​

You continually give generalisations that delve by no means into details. This is what we want to know - what does the passage mean? What is a firmament? Where was the water? Where did evening and morning come from? What do these things mean if it is all an allegory? Why did God put all this in the bible?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe claims a layer of water above the Earth)

Barbarian chuckles:
Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth. This should be fun.

Stipe dodges:
It wasn't.

So you can't support your belief. We'll note that admission and go on.

Now - do you have an answer for this or are you just going to keep dodging:

See above, Stipe. When you man up and show me your proof, we'll talk about it.

What does your "allegory" refer to?

Creation.

Allegories have meaning and are based on known ideas so that they can be understood.

For example, there was a real creation, and there were two people. Allegories can be about real things.

What does this passage mean if it is allegory?

Genesis 1:6-8
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

It says the initial creation was disordered and over time became ordered and things appeared out of the initial creation. If you'd spend some time learning about the foundations of Christianity, this wouldn't surprise you.

You continually give generalisations that delve by no means into details.

You can't read Genesis like a lawyer going over a contract, Stipe. Allegories don't work like that.

This is what we want to know - what does the passage mean? What is a firmament?

The word "raqua" meant something like a vessel beaten out of malleable material, like copper. Early on, people thought of the sky as a big inverted bowl, and that metaphor was used in the Hebrew language.

Where was the water?

Not understanding the water cycle, the ancient Hebrews supposed there was a big ocean overhead, with the sky containing windows from which it could drain out as rain.

Where did evening and morning come from?

Allegories don't have to be entirely consistent. That's one of the ways we know. Obviously, unless you redefine words, there can be no morning or evening without a sun.

What do these things mean if it is all an allegory?

He was describing creation to a scientifically primitive people. Did a really fine job of it, didn't He?

Why did God put all this in the bible?

The Bible is about God and men and our relationship. Creation is part of that. So His purposes were important.

 

[badp]

(Stipe claims a layer of water above the Earth)

Barbarian chuckles:
Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth. This should be fun.

Stipe dodges:
It wasn't.

You need to read Dr. Walt Brown's In The Beginning. The oceans weren't suspended up in the sky, as the book explains.

 

[The Barbarian]

You need to read Dr. Walt Brown's In The Beginning. The oceans weren't suspended up in the sky, as the book explains.

Yeah, Walt tried to save the story by supposing a whole lot of unscriptural miracles, and a few "scientific miracles" as well.

From a creationist source....

The Pressure Problem. A canopy holding only 40 feet of liquid water, or its equivalent weight of vapor (steam) or ice, would double the earth’s atmospheric pressure—making oxygen and nitrogen toxic to many animals, including humans.6 This is why most vapor canopy theories limit the thickness of water in their canopy to less than 40 feet.

For a vapor canopy holding this amount of water, the high pressure at the canopy’s base would require that the temperature at the base exceed a scorching 220°F. Otherwise, the vapor would condense into a liquid. A vapor canopy whose base had that temperature would radiate large amounts of heat to the earth’s solid surface. People, plants, and animals would absorb so much heat from all directions above that life might not survive.7 Those who believe that a vapor canopy would produce a globally mild climate have overlooked this detail.

And:

A Liquid or Ice Canopy. For liquid or ice particles to remain in space above the earth’s atmosphere, they must orbit the earth. Anything in a near-earth orbit must travel about 17,000 miles per hour (760,000 cm/sec). (As stated earlier, a layer of water only 40 feet thick contains 6.22 × 1021 grams of water.) Just as a spacecraft generates great heat as it reenters the atmosphere, orbiting liquid or ice particles would release all their kinetic energy as heat as they reenter the atmosphere. That amount of heat is faqzz-canopy_calories_from_collapsing_ice.jpg Image Thumbnail

where 2.39 × 10-8 converts the units to calories. This heat would raise the atmosphere’s temperaturefaqzz-canopy_temperature_from_collapsing_ice.jpg Image Thumbnail

Even if a canopy began with the coldest ice possible (absolute zero) or if some heat were transferred elsewhere, insufferable heat would remain.11

A similar problem exists if this ice were part of a spinning shell surrounding the earth. A rapidly-spinning shell, providing enough centrifugal force to balance the gravitational force as much as possible, would still have too much kinetic energy. Once the shell collapsed, that energy would become scalding heat, enough to “roast” all life on earth.

And:

During the last 36 years, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has been the best-known advocate of a vapor canopy. In 1998, ICR wrote that a strong greenhouse effect would exist under a vapor canopy, raising “surface temperatures as high as 400°F.” However, if many variables were chosen in the most favorable way for a vapor canopy, “the water content of a canopy could be as much as [no more than] three feet of liquid water without the surface temperature reaching temperatures which would destroy life on the earth.”13 Actually, their study shows that surface temperatures would be unbearable if a canopy were only 4 inches thick.

And:

Final Thoughts. Could there have been a canopy? Perhaps, in one of two ways. First, one could minimize most of these scientific problems by assuming that the canopy was thin, maybe inches thick. The thinner the canopy, the less severe most problems become. (Notice, the support and ultraviolet problems remain.) But what function would the canopy perform, and what hard, scientific evidence—not speculation—is there for claiming that a thin canopy could perform that function? Certainly, a thin canopy would not contribute to a global flood—the reason most people accepted the canopy in the first place.

Second, one could also dismiss each of these scientific problems by saying that God performed a miracle. That may be true. Certainly, He can; He has; and He sometimes does. However, miracles should not be proposed to “prop up” a scientific theory. (Some evolutionists mistakenly believe that this is how creation science works.) As one sees more and more “miracles” required by canopy theories, their plausibility decreases, and the need for an alternate explanation increases.

This is only some of the reasons the canopy won't work. See here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ33.html

 

[Jukia]

You need to read Dr. Walt Brown's In The Beginning. The oceans weren't suspended up in the sky, as the book explains.

Brown suggests that the Noachian flood waters came from underground caverns erupting releasing the energy of 1,500 trillion H-bombs along the mid ocean ridge. If my calculations are correct that is 3.26 x 10 to the 13th bombs per mile. But he never quite explains how he gets rid of all that energy.

Got any ideas?

 

[some other dude]

Brown suggests that the Noachian flood waters came from underground caverns erupting releasing the energy of 1,500 trillion H-bombs along the mid ocean ridge. If my calculations are correct that is 3.26 x 10 to the 13th bombs per mile. But he never quite explains how he gets rid of all that energy.

Got any ideas?

Hey - something's got to account for all those fast mutations. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Brown suggests that the Noachian flood waters came from underground caverns erupting releasing the energy of 1,500 trillion H-bombs along the mid ocean ridge. If my calculations are correct that is 3.26 x 10 to the 13th bombs per mile.

He actually wrote that?

 

[Jukia]

He actually wrote that?

I'll try to find it, but I recall reading that in his "Theory".

 

[Nick M]

Brown suggests that the Noachian flood waters came from underground caverns erupting releasing the energy of 1,500 trillion H-bombs along the mid ocean ridge. If my calculations are correct that is 3.26 x 10 to the 13th bombs per mile. But he never quite explains how he gets rid of all that energy.

Got any ideas?

Doesn't energy try to equalize?

 

[Jukia]

Doesn't energy try to equalize?

think in terms of the heat from these H-bomb equivilents. How do you expect to "equalize" that? How do you get rid of the heat?

 

[Jukia]

He actually wrote that?

From his on line book
" Many of the Earth’s Previously Unexplained Features Can Be Explained by a Cataclysmic Flood.
The origin of each of the following is a subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each has many aspects inconsistent with standard explanations. Yet all appear to be consequences of a sudden and unrepeatable event—a cataclysmic flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs. Consequences of this event included the rapid formation of the features listed below. The mechanisms involved are well understood.

103. The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
104. Mid-Oceanic Ridge
105. Earth’s Major Components
106. Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
107. Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
108. Submarine Canyons
109. Coal and Oil
110. Methane Hydrates
111. Ice Age
112. Frozen Mammoths
113. Major Mountain Ranges
114. Overthrusts
115. Volcanoes and Lava
116. Geothermal Heat
117. Strata and Layered Fossils
118. Limestone
119. Metamorphic Rock
120. Plateaus
121. The Moho and Black Smokers
122. Salt Domes
123. Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
124. Changing Axis Tilt
125. Comets
126. Asteroids and Meteoroids
127. Earth’s Radioactivity
For details on the above, see pages 106–365. "

Looks like I underestimated, he claims 1800 trillion, not 1500. I believe I saw a video where he claimed all this energy came through the mid ocean ridge system.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interesting. Sort of like Stipe, but with the ability to use large words.

 

[GuySmiley]

From his on line book
" Many of the Earth’s Previously Unexplained Features Can Be Explained by a Cataclysmic Flood.
The origin of each of the following is a subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each has many aspects inconsistent with standard explanations. Yet all appear to be consequences of a sudden and unrepeatable event—a cataclysmic flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs. Consequences of this event included the rapid formation of the features listed below. The mechanisms involved are well understood.
. . .
Looks like I underestimated, he claims 1800 trillion, not 1500. I believe I saw a video where he claimed all this energy came through the mid ocean ridge system.

He also says

4. A 1-megaton hydrogen bomb releases 4.184 × 10^22 ergs of energy. Therefore, the release of 1.7 × 10^37 ergs is the equivalent of exploding 400 trillion hydrogen bombs! However, most of the energy in the subterranean water was generated continually over many weeks (not one big explosion) and was focused up through the rupture and expelled into space. Comets, asteroids, irregular moons, and meteoroids have great kinetic and potential energy.

Which is a note that comes from this initial explanation

How Much Energy?
A small part of the nuclear energy absorbed by the subterranean water can be calculated. Our oceans have 1.43 × 10^24 grams of water. For every 18 grams of water (1 mole)85 there are 6.022 × 10^23 (Avogadro’s number)85 water molecules—each with 2 hydrogen atoms. One out of every 6,400 hydrogen atoms in our oceans is heavy hydrogen (2H or deuterium). Each fast neutron thermalized by water delivers at least 1 MeV of kinetic energy.85 (1 MeV = 1.602 × 10-6 erg)85 A hydrogen atom (1H) that absorbs a fast neutron releases 2.225 MeV of binding energy and becomes deuterium. So, assuming earth had no significant amount of deuterium before the flood, the amount of nuclear energy that was added to the subterranean water over several weeks, just in forming deuterium, was:

(equation wouldn't copy)

This is the energy that would be released by 1,800 trillion 1-megaton hydrogen bombs!86 [See Endnote 4 on page 491.] The crust became an earth-size nuclear engine during the several weeks when this energy was being generated. This is a conservative estimate of the nuclear energy added to the subterranean water, because other products of nuclear fission and decay would have added additional energy, and some water was expelled permanently from earth. Energy was also required to form radioisotopes and, in effect, “lift” them high above the floor of the valley of stability.

The above shows why so much deuterium was in the subterranean chamber. The solar system and stars contain relatively little deuterium—a fragile isotope—while comets and asteroids contain a relatively large amount of deuterium. [See page 275.] The comet chapter, pages 268–298, explains why the water in comets came from the subterranean chamber.