Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jose Fly

New member
Refusing to understand your error doesn't help either.

No error here. You claimed the released energy would not go to boiling away the oceans. So where did it go (keeping in mind this is supposedly during and/or soon after a global flood)?

Is this going to be like how you concluded there was a "dog kind" (Stripe's answer: "I guessed")? :chuckle:
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
You just refuse to understand the concept. There is energy made available; it is wrong to declare that this must go toward boiling oceans.
You never miss an opportunity to beat up on a poor defenseless straw man, do you? Who said ALL of the energy went to boiling the oceans? Just 1/3 of 1x10^28J of heat is enough to boil ALL of the water in ALL of the oceans on Earth and boiling ALL of the water isn't necessary to spoil Baumgardner's "theory".

[/QUOTE]It's like saying the sun is so hot that the oceans must be all gone.[/QUOTE]Only you are saying that.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

6days

New member
SilentHunter said:
Yeah, that's probably a whole lot easier than connecting creationism to actual science.
The One who created scientists, also created science. The world around us, as well as the universe speaks of the majesty of our Creator and the truth of His Word.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
The One who created scientists, also created science. The world around us, as well as the universe speaks of the majesty of our Creator and the truth of His Word.
Does, "The Moon is made of cheese", ring a bell?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
It is your claim that is in error; a release of energy does not mean the oceans will be boiled away.
Just 1/3 of 1x10^28J of heat is enough to boil ALL of the water in ALL of the oceans on Earth and boiling ALL of the water isn't necessary to spoil Baumgardner's "theory".

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Rosenritter

New member
Again (since you can't seem to wrap your head around this), the 1028 joules is what Baumgardner estimated would be released by moving continents around the planet in a single year, rapidly subducting plates, etc.

IOW, that's not the total energy required to do all that work, it's just the amount that would be released as heat.

If you don't understand, try reading it again.
Even if one were to assume that figure to be correct, which I have not, don't you figure that the earth and rock itself would soak some of that energy?

I still remind all of the silliness of pretending that increased water pressure on top of tectonic plates enough to cause shifting would then turn about and boil itself away.
 

Rosenritter

New member
SH,

There's yet another layer here that we haven't even touched. Baumgardner's estimates are based on all this continental movement and cooling taking place over thousands of years, which is way more generous than what other creationists have proposed (e.g., most of the events taking place in about a year).

In the "The Thermal Problem" section of his paper, he identifies three main sources of heat. First he notes that identifying the start of the flood as including all Cambrian and later-aged strata means that the current ocean lithosphere had to have gone from a near molten state to its current temperature in "only a few thousand years". Given what we know about the thermal conductivity of those strata, their size, and the temperature difference between being near-molten and their temperature today, even over a "few thousand years" the rock would have only cooled a "negligible" amount. From that he concludes "some additional mechanism is required for cooling the oceanic lithosphere to its present thickness on a brief timescale."

Next he points out that cooling large magmatic batholiths presents basically the same problem. He specifically notes that the Sierra Nevada range is one such large formation, and based on what we know of its thermal conductivity he concludes "Again thermal conduction alone simply cannot cool a body so vast in the span of a few thousand years." And again he concludes that "Some other mechanism seems to be needed".

Finally he notes how the present day viscosity of the mantle makes moving it large distances in short periods of time impossible. In order to lower the viscosity to make such movement possible, you'd have to have the entire mantle be significantly warmer followed by rapid cooling, again by some unknown mechanism.

From all that he concludes...

"These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author’s conclusion that this cannot happen within the framework of time-invariant physics. Therefore, an important clue as to the nature of the change that occurred seems to be that it involved a decrease in thermal energy throughout the planet."​

IOW, this simply does not work without several miracles. And that's over thousands of years. Imagine what we're dealing with if we're talking within a single year!

There's no polite way to put this....this whole young-earth flood thing is just plain absurd, pretty much on the same scale as flat-earth geocentrism.
That's a pretty audacious claim considering that radioactive atmospheric carbon hasn't come to equilibrium, the moon lacks dust and debris for old earth theory, Saturn's rings prove to be recently formed, etc etc etc. Earth isn't likely to be much older than its solar system. Myopic arrogance will know no end...
 

Jose Fly

New member
Even if one were to assume that figure to be correct, which I have not, don't you figure that the earth and rock itself would soak some of that energy?

Try and keep up. As I explained in THIS POST, the rock is the source of much of the heat (due to marine lithosphere going from molten to current state, cooling of batholiths, and decreasing viscosity of the mantle).
 

Jose Fly

New member
That's a pretty audacious claim considering that radioactive atmospheric carbon hasn't come to equilibrium, the moon lacks dust and debris for old earth theory, Saturn's rings prove to be recently formed, etc etc etc. Earth isn't likely to be much older than its solar system. Myopic arrogance will know no end...

What in the heck does any of that have to do with the thermal issues outlined in my post you were responding to?

Were you just throwing out as many red herrings as possible in the hopes that I'd follow one, thereby allowing you to dodge addressing some of the massive heat issues involved with this whole flood nonsense?
 

Lon

Well-known member
gcthomas asked Lon:

Lon responded:

My research on what Einstein said about atheists parallels what gc mentioned – Einstein didn’t express a generic dislike of atheists, but specifically directed his criticism to “fanatical atheists”, and to what he termed as “professional atheists”.

I gather my information from relying on Einstein’s own writings on the subject as recorded in his creed (“My Credo”), his autobiographical books “The World as I See It” and “Out of My Later Years”, an article “Einstein and God” by Bishop Robert Barron, an article “Albert Einstein on Religion and Science” authored by Einstein in about 1930, several fairly extended biographies (by isaacson, Shaw, Clarke).

Lon, in light of my failure to find anywhere in Einstein’s writings where he criticized generic atheism, and few mentions of atheism or atheists in any context, I would appreciate you sharing with us those general views about atheists from Einstein that you say you can find “easily”.

Yes. You have the right of it that he was very much against the professional atheist and the fanatic. "Oh, then Einstein didn't mean atheists in general..." Incorrect. Every crusading atheist on TOL is a fanatical and 'professional' atheist (because there was and is no such thing other than a die-hard drone).

If you understand that Einstein was a pantheist, you will ever understand that he was very much against atheism. It necessarily follows from a pantheistic view. Pantheism is much closer to a personal God than an atheist fathoms because Einstein saw that the universe necessarily had to be made by intelligence. This too is why he didn't believe in a 'personal' God as he called Christianity and Judaism: Because the Creator would have to null His own laws. I don't share this hurdle with Einstein and such could be discussed as to why, but once any atheist recognizes what pantheism means, they would never with honesty or integrity say Einstein was any sort of atheist. He necessarily couldn't have been and necessarily called them (the atheist - "scientist without religion") 'lame.' If one doesn't get this, they will never understand Einstein. Every thing he said came consistently from a pantheist worldview and he repeatedly repudiated any atheistic label. When you understand his pantheism too, you'll realize that he was particularly harsh with godless science (atheism).
 

Lon

Well-known member
:doh: "...from the viewpoint..." it ever amazes me that people read without comprehension :(

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” -Albert Einstein

[FONT=&quot]The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. -Einstein[/FONT]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top