Great. Let us know when you're caught up. :thumb:
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Greg Jennings
New member
So just TELL ME where it (Stripe's hydroplate physics post(s)) is? I'll take an approximation if you don't remember exactly
You claim you want to discuss evidence. I'm trying to do so.
Then please tell me where your hydroplate physics post(s) is/are.
Why are you doing this? You are claiming to want to discuss evidence. Yet you are doing the very thing --- dodging all questions and hoping I'll move on, while giving me empty bs replies ---- that you accuse "Darwinists" of doing. You're spamming
Once again, you're a massive stooge and hypocrite simultaneously
You don't want to discuss the evidence. If you ever do, let me know where your stuff is at
Jose Fly
New member
Seriously?
Greg Jennings
New member
Just making a point, Jose. Chill :chuckle:
Jose Fly
New member
:yawn:
Greg Jennings
New member
Bored? Here
So just TELL ME where it (Stripe's hydroplate physics post(s)) is? I'll take an approximation if you don't remember exactly
You claim you want to discuss evidence. I'm trying to do so.
Then please tell me where your hydroplate physics post(s) is/are.
Why are you doing this? You are claiming to want to discuss evidence. Yet you are doing the very thing --- dodging all questions and hoping I'll move on, while giving me empty bs replies ---- that you accuse "Darwinists" of doing. You're spamming
Once again, you're a massive stooge and hypocrite simultaneously
You don't want to discuss the evidence. If you ever do, let me know where your stuff is at
Last edited:
(Bsrbarian comments on Stipe's unwillingness to show the math for his beliefs)
Creationists often have a problem with understanding energy and how it works.
You, for example, haven't figured out the difference between a system losing energy, and an energy transformation within a system. Want me to show you, again?
Right. No matter how you do it, all that energy has to go somewhere. Something would have to stop the motion, and the kinetic energy would be transformed to heat one way or the other.
There is no hydroplate theory, Stipe. It's a religious belief. You won't show us the math, because there is no math supporting it.
All right Stipe. Show us your numbers. Where does all that energy go?
Handwaving isn't an explanation, Stipe. Show us how that kinetic energy is tranformed, and where. With the math. Prediction: Stipe will dodge the question again, with some generic insults.
Creationists often have a problem with understanding energy and how it works.
You, for example, haven't figured out the difference between a system losing energy, and an energy transformation within a system. Want me to show you, again?
Right. No matter how you do it, all that energy has to go somewhere. Something would have to stop the motion, and the kinetic energy would be transformed to heat one way or the other.
There is no hydroplate theory, Stipe. It's a religious belief. You won't show us the math, because there is no math supporting it.
All right Stipe. Show us your numbers. Where does all that energy go?
Handwaving isn't an explanation, Stipe. Show us how that kinetic energy is tranformed, and where. With the math. Prediction: Stipe will dodge the question again, with some generic insults.
Bsrbarian shows his complete ineptitude:
Now, can you figure out where?
Want to try again? Energy does not have to be converted to heat to stop motion. I bet even Greg could tell you that.
If you look back, I gave you some hints to where it might have gone with two thought experiments.
Would you like a little time to review? You don't want to keep getting this wrong.
It's quite important.
That's right!
Now, can you figure out where?
Oh, that's a nice try, but unfortunately wrong. It's like that time you said predictions were "all that matter in science."
Want to try again? Energy does not have to be converted to heat to stop motion. I bet even Greg could tell you that.
If you look back, I gave you some hints to where it might have gone with two thought experiments.
Would you like a little time to review? You don't want to keep getting this wrong.
It's quite important.
ThisIsMyUserName
New member
Hi everybody
Quick announcement: if you haven't noticed, there's a new thread open:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?128506-Why-Evolution-is-real-science-let-s-settle-this-quot-debate-quot-!&p=5190683&viewfull=1#post5190683
Check it out and let me know what you think.
Quick announcement: if you haven't noticed, there's a new thread open:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?128506-Why-Evolution-is-real-science-let-s-settle-this-quot-debate-quot-!&p=5190683&viewfull=1#post5190683
Check it out and let me know what you think.
Greg Jennings
New member
Been a while since I had physics. I'd have to do some research
If a ball rolls down a hill, how can it come to a stop without all its kinetic energy being converted to heat?
You don't seem to be able to tell us. Rolling downhill, the ball's potential energy is transformed to kinetic energy.
Stopping it on the way down, or even on the bottom of the hill will transform the kinetic energy to heat.
Might be a long way around. For example, a strongly magnetic ball, rolling down through a thick copper tube, will lose kinetic energy by friction and more strongly by Lenz's law that says a magnet moving past a conductor will induce an electrical current in the conductor and will resist motion of the magnet.
But when the magnet comes to a stop, the friction and electrical current are lost as heat.
If it's merely rolling down a hill and stops at the bottom, it's all lost as heat from friction.
The only exception is in raising an object. Here, it's removed as potential energy.
However, we're talking about moving continents thousands of miles, and raising mountains perhaps 2 miles.
Further, we're also talking about subducting other crust below sea level at the same time, which means the same process is also reducing potential energy. Likely a wash. Rest of it is heat.
No way to get around it.
Your unwillingness to explain your position suggests that you have already figured out that it's faulty.
:darwinsm:
Only five times.
Inventing a new scenario isn't addressing the situation.
Hurray!
Blablaman has finally gotten it right! Kinetic energy does not have to go to heat, as he insisted it must have done.
Of course, he's tried to mitigate his embarrassment by pretending it was him who raised this exception.
Oh dear.
You should have stopped while you were "ahead." :chuckle:
Physics it's not your strong point, is it?
The horizontal movement of the crust is irrelevant when it comes to calculating how much energy is involved.
Nope. This is just you pretending that your ideas must be involved everywhere.
:darwinsm:
You're so stupid.
Barbarian explains why Stipe can't use potential energy to make his problem go away:
However, we're talking about moving continents thousands of miles, and raising mountains perhaps 2 miles.
However, we're talking about moving continents thousands of miles, and raising mountains perhaps 2 miles.
Barbarian explains why potential energy won't save Stipe's new religion:
However, we're talking about moving continents thousands of miles, and raising mountains perhaps 2 miles.
It always eventually does, Stipe. That's why they call it "thermodynamics."
Further, we're also talking about subducting other crust below sea level at the same time, which means the same process is also reducing potential energy, as the crust goes lower into the mantle. Likely a wash. Rest of it is heat. Physics it's not your strong point, is it?
Stipe tries a different dodge:
The horizontal movement of the crust is irrelevant when it comes to calculating how much energy is involved.
You're wrong. Force always equals mass times acceleration. And slowing down is acceleration as much as speeding up is acceleration. So you will always have to expend energy to make something move, and then again to stop it. No way around it, Stipe.
Stipe vents his embarrassment:
However, we're talking about moving continents thousands of miles, and raising mountains perhaps 2 miles.
It always eventually does, Stipe. That's why they call it "thermodynamics."
Further, we're also talking about subducting other crust below sea level at the same time, which means the same process is also reducing potential energy, as the crust goes lower into the mantle. Likely a wash. Rest of it is heat. Physics it's not your strong point, is it?
Stipe tries a different dodge:
The horizontal movement of the crust is irrelevant when it comes to calculating how much energy is involved.
You're wrong. Force always equals mass times acceleration. And slowing down is acceleration as much as speeding up is acceleration. So you will always have to expend energy to make something move, and then again to stop it. No way around it, Stipe.
Stipe vents his embarrassment:
6days
New member
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth. Psalm 104
"Many creationist geologists believe that the Genesis Flood involved rapid movement of the huge plates comprising the crust of the Earth. This explains why so much sediment was still soft when it was deformed. No sooner would floodwaters have deposited great volumes of mud and sand than moving plates would have crumpled and deformed the sediment while it was still saturated. The Flood also explains the colossal forces needed to fold enormous areas of hard rock.
The Biblical Flood is a simple, logical, and valid explanation for why we find so much rock that has been catastrophically deformed on all the continents." https://creation.com/warped-earth
Nope.
You're prepared to say anything in order to avoid engaging rationally, aren't you?
When the hydroplates slid, the energy did not have to all go toward heating the oceans. You've admitted this, remember?