So you don't know how a ball could stop rolling without most of its energy being converted to heat unless I tell you.
You just ruled yourself out of the conversation.
:mock: Stuu-pid.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
So you don't know how a ball could stop rolling without most of its energy being converted to heat unless I tell you.
You just ruled yourself out of the conversation.
:mock: Stuu-pid.
No, I know exactly how that can be done.
But what does that have to do with you being right about your claims not being worth resurrecting from the graveyard of past pages long forgotten?
Stuart
Ah. So you've reverted to being a troll.
What claims? :idunno:
You shouldn't get involved in conversations if you're not willing to figure out what's being discussed.
One time only
One time only
I've had four or five Darwinists whining about old posts, so I'm going to make an exception and show them where the conversation about energy began.
Just this once.
One time only
I've had four or five Darwinists whining about old posts, so I'm going to make an exception and show them where the conversation about energy began.
Just this once.
No, I really can tell you how the kinetic energy of a rolling ball could be converted to energy other than heat. Why are you so distrustful?
You are right to disown them.
Stuart
Great! Then you know how to answer the objection raised to the Hydroplate theory. :thumb:
Disown what? :idunno:
And what objection would that be? Something about motion being turned into heat?
Stuart
Ok, rather I should have asked, which of the overwhelming number of objections to the hydroplate theory did you mean?
You call it a theory. What testable prediction does it make?
Stuart
I don't really care much for the 'hydroplate theory fries everything, including the ark' thermodynamic arguments. I think there are much more interesting problems, like the theological implications of having an earth that is preplanned for killing off most of its inhabitants - just in case?
Or the interestingly low rate of mention of any gods in this idea, almost as if the god is irrelevant to the whole mechanism, which is entirely materialistic and requires no special action at all. With such a materialist setup, could anyone be sure that it was not triggered accidentally?
Or the question of how you could have a reservoir of saline water erupt and rain down on everything. Recent salt water inundation in a campground in Nelson has started the death of all the plant life, so what would the ark inhabitants have eaten while waiting for new crops to grow (and to grow in what)?
Then there is the aesthetic value of having a creation that must have looked much more appealing after the flood, if the flood caused mountains to appear (have I got this right?): on pre-flood hydroplates you couldn't have had anything much higher than a very low hill, so the original 'perfect' creation had no alpine environment at all, despite the flood supposedly covering 'high mountains'. It appears humanity has been rewarded for the sins of its fathers with the appearance of magnificent snow-covered mountains.
Stuart
There's only one objection in there that could sensibly have a "therefore... something" following it and that point showed ignorance of what the theory says.
If you want to discuss ideas, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Well, we're not talking about anything that ever actually happened, so by all means tell me about your fantasy version of history. You can invent anything you like, it makes no difference.
Stuart
The Following User Isn't So Sure About This Post;
Stuu Seems To Be Making Sense, But, Safer To Say Nothing:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JudgeRightly
That which you assert without evidence, I am justified in ignoring without evidence.
I present you with plate tectonics, which doesn't require the denial of the scripture that mentions the mountains, and actually completely explains the existence of those mountains.
But by all means provide evidence for hydroplates being a better explanation for features and phenomena that have already been explained by plate tectonics.
Stuart
You don't care, remember?
Not sure where you read that.
I care about what is true, and clearly plate tectonics is true, so hydroplates are not.
It appears that the bible also says they are not true.
Stuart
Right here:
We were talking about something. You stormed in here, ignorance ablazing, and —after a failed attempt at the topic — started talking about anything else.
Also:
You don't care.
Nope. It's just a theory. When you elevate theories to facts, you turn yourself into a religious acolyte.
What possible use would it be to discuss the evidence with you?
Stuu: I don't really care much for the 'hydroplate theory fries everything, including the ark' thermodynamic arguments.
Your interpretation of that is almost identical to the creationist interpretation of evidence. You quote mine, ignoring the part that doesn't suit your prejudice.
This ignoring the full picture happens over and over again with fantasy conspiracy theorists, for example, this creationist model of special creation:
is the same as this evolutionary tree of common ancestry:
except the creationist model involves ignoring the bottom part of the diagram to suit religiously-motivated prejudice. Although I'm not sure how religiously motivated it is with you. I think you are just contrarian for no healthy reason, and the god aspect really isn't that important to you.
Creationist canard 1: 'just a theory'. Creationist canard 2: 'it's religious' (to which one might respond, so what's wrong with religion, in your opinion?). My creationist bingo card is filling up quickly today.
If you haven't worked that out by now then I'm not sure anyone could be flattering about the amount of attention you have been paying.
You know full well that hydroplate is like any other conspiracy theory: it 'explains' one phenomenon really badly, and ignores every other relevant fact.
This is a particularly amusing fantasy because it tries to use naturalistic mechanisms to remove the god from the story of that god taking wholesale vengeance on its playthings. I sometimes wonder if your god is an inconvenience to you.
Stuart
The Following User Just Loves All This Stuff:
--------------------------------------------------------------
JudgeRightly
Whatever helps you sleep.
... the evidence.
If you believe that, you should put me on ignore. :thumb:
Unfortunately, the Darwinists aren't interested in a rational discussion over the evidence and they declare their amusement at the expense of others justification for their involvement.
Nope. You declare plate tectonics a fact. It's not. It's just a theory.
When you declare ideas to be facts, you won't be swayed by the evidence.
Nope.
Nope.
Last edited: