Creation vs. Evolution

[Silent Hunter]

??????????? So in your brain "X joules of heat would be released" is the same as "all energy would go to heat"? :idunno:

All that matters is that "more than enough [heat]" was released.

You assumed all those joules had to be heat.

Vaporizing ALL of the water isn't necessary to produce the effect either.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

??????????? So in your brain "X joules of heat would be released" is the same as "all energy would go to heat"? :idunno:

Again you're mixing up the words. Those are important, you know?

The quote from you is 10²⁸ joules of energy are required to raise the mountains, not 10²⁸ joules of heat.

The error you make is to assume all of that energy had to go toward boiling the oceans.

It didn't. The mountains were raised, remember?
They are still raised, you know?

 

[MichaelCadry]

And likewise, you told us that God told you that the rapture would before the end of last year, and that you even asked for and received permission from God to convey that information to us. Seeing how that wrong that fiasco turned out, there is no message you could deliver to us now that we can trust.

Dear DavisBJ,

When I make mistakes, I admit them, it doesn't matter if they are substantial mistakes. Many others have done the same. It is the same thing, no matter how you deny it. We all make substantial mistakes!!

Just because I make a couple of mistakes doesn't mean I'm not a very good math teacher and can solve other equations without mistakes. Just because Moses broke the stone tablets from the first Ten Commandments, doesn't mean God didn't write him a second pair {On two tablets, I believe}. Hey, I could go on and on. From what I understand, even the apostles and disciples made a substantial mistake believing that Jesus would return during their lifetime. Jonah refused to go and preach to Nineveh, thus denying God, but he still finally went to tell the city of their impending destruction. Then, the city never got destroyed. The people of the Nineveh repented. I could go on and on, like when Moses struck the rock and water came out of it. He struck it with his staff as if he made the rock bear water when God actually was doing it.

You got all gabbledebabbled once before and threatened to ban me, only to get all namby-pamby and apologetic in just a couple days. But if you insist, if you can’t ban someone, I am sure you can ask one of the moderators to do it for you. Maybe you want the next 19,000 posts in this thread to be verses of kumbaya as you all sing in unison behind your wall of censorship.

Yes, I wanted to ban you, but it works differently here on TOL, because then you can say anything about me and I won't know what it is. You know what I mean. And no, I don't want others to sing kumbaya. You come up with the stupidest things.

Part of life is dealing with people who irritate us. How you chose to respond to those people is a pretty good measure of your own moral stature.

Who are you kidding BJ?? You threatened to ban me also and didn't. You got to read what I had to say and then respond with Ignore #1-66. You're ridiculous.

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

The quote from you is 10²⁸ joules of energy are required to raise the mountains

I didn't say that either. You seem to have some real reading comprehension issues. Here again is what I said...

Pay attention...it's not my theory, it's yours. And that forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans doesn't come from me, it comes from your fellow creationists, i.e., John Baumgardner who estimated 1028 joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker.

Nowhere did I say all the energy would go to heat, nor did I say that the 10²⁸ joules was all the energy involved.

The error you make is to assume all of that energy had to go toward boiling the oceans.

Which only exists in your mind.

Once again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey Y'all,

I am behind by four pages. I will try to catch up. I have to go for now.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[Silent Hunter]

Again you're mixing up the words. Those are important, you know?

The quote from you is 10²⁸ joules of energy are required to raise the mountains, not 10²⁸ joules of heat.

The error you make is to assume all of that energy had to go toward boiling the oceans.

It didn't. The mountains were raised, remember?
They are still raised, you know?

You obviously don't understand how much energy 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J is. The Sun produces 3.8x1026 per second!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Nowhere did I say all the energy would go to heat.

Which has nothing to do with your error. Your error is to assume that the energy released had to go toward boiling the oceans. It didn't. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still there, you realize?

Once again we see how it is impossible for a Darwinist to engage rationally.

 

[Stripe]

You obviously don't understand how much energy 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J is. The Sun produces 3.8x1026 per second!

Gee. Shouldn't the oceans be boiled away then?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your error is to assume that the energy released had to go toward boiling the oceans. It didn't.

Because you say so. Again, your say-so is only meaningful to you. No one else cares.

 

[patrick jane]

Hey Y'all,

I am behind by four pages. I will try to catch up. I have to go for now.

Thanks,

Michael

Hurry up and catch up Mike, we cant' keep waiting for you !!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Yeah, Stuu, turn and believe. Believe that your wife just might turn into a pillar of salt. Or that the snake in your garden is a descendant of one that gabbed with Eve. Or that the dead plant cells making up one of those sticks outside your door might suddenly transform into living animal cells (of the serpent variety). Or that at the very moment that Noah closed the door behind that last bug entering the Ark (the bug who was assigned to make sure the Black Death would survive), at that moment there was a rupture in the tectonic plates releasing a gigazillion gallons of water onto the earth. Or that the virgins taken captive from slaughtered tribes are war booty for the blood-soaked victors. Or that the infants of neighboring tribes are best slaughtered as though they were just cattle. That’s all, just believe.

Dear DavisBJ,

What in the hell do you know?? With God, all things are possible. If He wants to turn the ground into a man, the He shall. And you think that He can't turn a rod into a snake, or make a woman into a pillar of salt, or create a snake from a serpent because of what the serpent said to Eve. Snakes used to have legs and then they were called serpents.

As far as mountains being formed, I can't say I know for sure, but I get this feeling that they were formed when the tectonic plates moved and countries ran into each other causing a great buckling. And it would let ocean water pour under tectonic plates rush under plates and create mountains. And we know that undersea volcanoes can make an island, so I'm sure they could make mountains on a continent. These are just some of my ideas. I'm not saying any of this is fact yet, but these are some things that I ponder upon. God could have caused extreme earthquakes to make mountains. We're going to get an earthquake so strong that there has never happened one since man has been on Earth. See Rev. 16:18KJV. One is supposed to occur soon. These are the things that I ponder. Maybe you all could teach us all something with these factors in place?!

Much Love From God, And From Me,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Over-thinking, over complicating. Me? I ask "what did it mean? what does it me for me?" You? :nono: So, here we go down the pithy road...again.



lain: What is the truth conveyed or are you happy to be stuck in details and miss all kinds of points? Do you do this with Aesop's Fables ? "Ants don't talk" is your stopping point? :think: I must apologize that I think 'pithy' often. Cannot help it. Why do I mention it? Because you necessarily are going to have to leave this all behind lest you remain what is my estimation of pithy, shallow, and sad.

Dear Lon,

Ants do communicate. Whether that means they talk is not so unusual. I know you know this already. They don't speak English, but they do communicate to tell each other where a source of food is and how to follow each other to the bounty.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

You asked for specifics on sea creatures big enough to hold Jonah? Sperm whale, whale shark, and white shark. I hear that these have all been found carrying whole creatures big or bigger than a man. Additionally, other creatures could qualify as well that may not be as common today (dinosaurs) and these creatures may also come in larger than normal sizes.

How could he breathe? A whale's stomach contains some air, and there are multiple possible answers. One of which you already acknowledged, that of having the fish come to the surface a few times. Another that I already mentioned was that of slowing Jonah's metabolism, which hardly seems supernatural seeing that it's a technique known to Bhuddist monks today. So what if Jonah wasn't Buddhist? Considering that he's already steering the fish, it's not that hard for God to do it for him.

Stomach acid and bends? These are not our concern, because God wasn't trying to give Jonah a ride in comfort. He just needed to come out the other end of the experience alive. Regardless, by this point you already granted that "God prepared a great fish" for the purpose of swallowing Jonah. If one is preparing the fish to swallow him on command, it's a small bit extra to make sure that it's stomach acid is dilute enough to not dissolve the target (sea water anyone?)

Jonah and the whale is one of those examples for which it doesn't require much imagination for feasibility. Matter and energy remain constant and the minimum required supernatural interference is instructing the trained whale (large sea creature.) You might as well protest the storm that preceded the whole encounter, and claim that "it's not scientific that God could create a storm!"

Let's put this in perspective. You protest that an intelligent being able to create life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. I protest that an unintelligent accident creating life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. Only one of these has been observed to have happened. I think my scenario has a significant head start on yours.



I could certainly dispute it. To quote Captain America, "There's only one God, and He doesn't dress like THAT." And besides, I was here last Friday at noon, so yes, I can disprove it through witness testimony.

Should we include supernatural under science of study? It depends what you mean by that. Spirits are known for being unpredictable, and I don't recommend trying to summon them or dabbling with the occult. So as a general answer, no. However, that is a far stretch from being so blind as to deny that supernatural does exist.

Dear Rosenritter,

You must make sure that BJ knows that if God can save Daniel and his friends from Extremely Hot Furnace fire, He can keep Jonah completely absolved of any digestive acids in the whales stomach. And God can do all of the questions DavisBJ ever has because Davis is stuck with man's capabilities, not realizing that God can do TONS more!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Yes. We know why. You were desperate to derail the conversation that had exposed the lack of understanding in your fellow Darwinist — but that was not your primary goal: The No. 1 aim you had in this rabbit trail (which you knew the answer to) was to not allow a creationist's ideas even the semblance of respectability.

Fly made an obvious error in demanding that all the energy mentioned had to go toward cooking water. Sorry if you were unable to comprehend such a deep concept.

You leaped onto the Baumgardner train to get the discussion as far away from the Darwinist's failing as possible. Is is just due to your mindless allegiance to your precious religion.

Which of course has nothing to do with the accusation that you will never concede the validity of any idea sourced by the Bible.

Everything you say is designed to turn the conversation away from a rational path.

Feel free to put me on ignore and stick to it. :up:



Trust me, it's safer this way.

Dear Stripe,

Yes, I see what you are saying. Let everyone think I'm on drugs for now and let time's passing prove the things I claim. Is that it?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hurry up and catch up Mike, we cant' keep waiting for you !!

Dear patrick,

You don't have to wait for me to catch up at all. I will catch up fast. It's cool!!

God Bless You For Caring,

Michael

 

[Lon]

I think the difference between Aesop's stories and the stories in the Bible is that no one suggests that Aesop is 100% literal nor does anyone suggest that failing to live one's life according to Aesop will lead to eternal torment.

Be a thinking and contemplative individual, not a reactionary one. You shouldn't have voiced simply your glancing first gleanings.

 

[Lon]

I challenged you specifically about your claim that Einstein called atheists dead or blind. You declined to provide evidence, citing that it had already been provided. OK. I have searched the thread and found your original comment:

:nono: You found what you could to say what you wanted and ignored what is pertinent.
Atheists are slaves to their own chains -Albert Einstein

Now, if you follow the link, it doesn't say what you claim. Is that a mistake on your part, a kind of wish fulfilment? Or, given the effort I have made to encourage you to justify the misrepresentation, is it a plain lie?

Yes. It does. He said "religion" and you are a lying. To yourself. I nor anybody else is buying your crud.

His Credo says:


So, he says that all serious endeavour in art and science has the sense of the mysterious. He DOESN'T say that scientists without religion are dead or blind. He doesn't say that science needs religion.

Yeah. He does. "Science without religion is lame." -Albert Einstein, NY Times

IAll he says is that everyone needs a sense of the mysterious, and that is a principle of both religion, art and science. So you have been mistaken or dishonest?

Neither. Rather you've been inept, petty, woefully negligent in homework (F-) and snarky. :yawn:

I(My prediction - you will bluster and ignore that you are proved wrong by your own link you gave as evidence)

The sad thing is you believe the garbage you try to sell. Nobody else will. My statements all stand and yours are easily and quickly seen for the feeble attempt. Par for the relative truth and relative moralist. Me? I know words mean something and that I cannot remake them to say the opposite of what they actually mean. You go ahead and be inept and do try not to drag me or any actual thinking person into the mess. It's pathetic - crayon all over the wall and you are much out of your league lain:

A scientists understanding "takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” -Albert Einstein

Such was ever pantheistic and Einstein was bothered greatly when called an atheist.

 

[Silent Hunter]

QUOTE=Stripe;4754190]Which has nothing to do with your error. Your error is to assume that the energy released had to go toward boiling the oceans. It didn't. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still there, you realize?[/quote]Yeah, the mountains just raised straight up because your deity used a crane. All that movement didn't produce even 1J of heat, right? No friction whatsoever, right? If no heat was produced why is heat such a problen in Baumgardner's model?

Attempting to show Stripe just how much energy 1.0x10^28J is:

You obviously don't understand how much energy 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J is. The Sun produces 3.8x1026 per second!

Gee. Shouldn't the oceans be boiled away then?

1.0x10^28J to move mountains vs 3.8x10^26J/sec from Sun.

It takes the ENTIRE Sun almost half-a-minute (3.8x10^26J/sec) to produce the 1.0x10^28J in Baumgardner's model.

If we assume that it takes 9,900,000J to boil one gallon of water and if we assume that there are 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in all the Earth's oceans:

9,900,000J/gallon x 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water = ~3.23x10^27J to BOIL all the water in Earth's oceans.

1.0x10^28J - 3.23x10^27J

This STILL leaves ~6.8x10^27J to "raise" the mountains. or MORE THAN TWICE the energy necessary to boil all of the water in all the oceans on Earth.

Is my math correct?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Because you say so. Again, your say-so is only meaningful to you. No one else cares.

Did the energy go toward boiling away the oceans or not?

QUOTE=Stripe;4754190]Which has nothing to do with your error. Your error is to assume that the energy released had to go toward boiling the oceans. It didn't. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still there, you realize?quote]Yeah, the mountains just raised straight up because your deity used a crane. All that movement didn't produce even 1J of heat, right? No friction whatsoever, right? If no heat was produced why is heat such a problen in Baumgardner's model?Attempting to show Stripe just how much energy 1.0x10^28J is1.0x10^28J to move mountains vs 3.8x10^26J/sec from Sun.It takes the ENTIRE Sun almost half-a-minute (3.8x10^26J/sec) to produce the 1.0x10^28J in Baumgardner's model.If we assume that it takes 9,900,000J to boil one gallon of water and if we assume that there are 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in all the Earth's oceans:9,900,000J/gallon x 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water = ~3.23x10^27J to BOIL all the water in Earth's oceans.1.0x10^28J - 3.23x10^27JThis STILL leaves ~6.8x10^27J to "raise" the mountains. or MORE THAN TWICE the energy necessary to boil all of the water in all the oceans on Earth.Is my math correct?Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

It's clear that you have no appreciation for what is being discussed.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Did the energy go toward boiling away the oceans or not.

With so much energy being involved is it absolutely impossible for the oceans to have been heated to the boiling point?

It's clear that you have no appreciation for what is being discussed.

It's clear that you have no appreciation for the vast amount of energy involved. Either that or numbers suddenly have no relevance to you if population growth isn't being discussed.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk