Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Right Divider]

has anyone every provided an answer to what happens to all the heat (h bomb equivalents) brown has suggested? where does that go?

• Read his book
• Much of it was converted to kinetic energy

 

[JudgeRightly]

has anyone every provided an answer to what happens to all the heat (h bomb equivalents) brown has suggested? where does that go?

What heat? Some of the energy got turned into heat, sure, but the fountains themselves were sub-zero.

 

[Clete]

@Clete Do you want to know what I find implausible?
I find it implausible that Dr. Brown, who has a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and has studied this topic for decades, would miss something so fundamental that you seem to think that a high school science student would understand it. I find it implausible that Dr. Brown's theory makes many predictions that are now confirmed based on what you say cannot happen. (see Predictions 20-21 in In the Begging 9th edition, page 340).

Appeal to authority. Unconvincing.

Also, to reiterate what I said before about the forces involved. The equivalent of 300 quintillion tons of TNT. One ton of TNT produces 4.184 gigajoules. That's for ONE TON of TNT.

So 300 million trillions tons of TNT products 1.2252 x 10^29 joules.
That's ~122 octillion joules!

300 million trillion (300 quintillion) tons of TNT?

Is that a number the Dr. Brown produced? If so, does he give any evidence that such an amount of energy could/would actually be produced, given the theorized scenario? If so, would you happen to know just about where I could find it in his book?

Also note that this scattering of earth debris is fundamental to HPT. It is the reason that the moons cycles went from 30 days to ~29.5 days. It is also one of the reasons why the earth year went from 360 days to ~365.25 days.

It is fundamental to parts of the theory but not to the whole. Generally, I think the theory does an excellent job of explaining a lot of various kinds of geologic phenomena all over the globe. More than that, my major objection here is not that material could not have been sent into orbit around the Earth or even that some small amount could perhaps have been removed entirely from Earth's gravity well and set as far as the Moon or sent flying off into deep space. That however, is a far cry, a very far cry indeed, from the idea that something could be sent into an orbit around the Sun. You simply cannot comprehend the amount of energy that would require and it all would have had to be imparted very nearly instantaneously to boot. No way that much energy density doesn't vaporize everything it touches.

Further, why does Dr. Brown feel the need to explain the origin of comets anyway? If he's content with God having created the planets and asteroids and everything else in the solar system, why not include the comets as well?

 

[Clete]

Then you should pay special attention to the section of that video pertaining to short, medium and long period comets. It gives excellent evidence that the material that makes up those comets was launched from earth. It starts about about 16:45

This section on the orbits of two well known comets is also excellent evidence that they originated from the earth:

I'll watch the videos again.

 

[Right Divider]

Appeal to authority. Unconvincing.

I'm not appealing to his authority, I'm denying yours.

300 million trillion (300 quintillion) tons of TNT?

Again ( I guess that you don't remember our previous conversations), I took HIS estimation of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs and multiplied by an average H-bomb yield to get that number.

Is that a number the Dr. Brown produced?

No, see above.

If so, does he give any evidence that such an amount of energy could/would actually be produced, given the theorized scenario? If so, would you happen to know just about where I could find it in his book?

It's in a video of an interview with him. It's not in the book (I wish that it was).

It is fundamental to parts of the theory but not to the whole.

Yes.

Generally, I think the theory does an excellent job of explaining a lot of various kinds of geologic phenomena all over the globe. More than that, my major objection here is not that material could not have been sent into orbit around the Earth or even that some small amount could perhaps have been removed entirely from Earth's gravity well and set as far as the Moon or sent flying off into deep space. That however, is a far cry, a very far cry indeed, from the idea that something could be sent into an orbit around the Sun.

Orbiting the sun is not so difficult at you make it out to be.
Once an object is outside of earth's field of influence... the sun's takes over.

You simply cannot comprehend the amount of energy that would require and it all would have had to be imparted very nearly instantaneously to boot.

I realized recently that this is exactly where you have gone wrong. It was NOT instantaneous. Just like the 40 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN was not instantaneous. The launching of matter from the earth happened during the SAME time period.

No way that much energy density doesn't vaporize everything it touches.

See above.

Further, why does Dr. Brown feel the need to explain the origin of comets anyway?

Why does Dr. Brown need to explain anything? He does so because his theory explains a great deal about the events associated with the flood.

If he's content with God having created the planets and asteroids

He's not... He says that asteroids were also created during and by the events associated with the flood.
https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html

and everything else in the solar system, why not include the comets as well?

Because Dr. Brown has a better explanation than just "God did it".

HPT explains exactly what we should expect to find and what we do find with regard to the composition of these various objects in our solar system.

 

[Right Divider]

I'll watch the videos again.

Thank you.

 

[Clete]

I'm not appealing to his authority, I'm denying yours.

Even if that were true, it's the same thing. His education vs mine is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that which is in dispute.

Again ( I guess that you don't remember our previous conversations), I took HIS estimation of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs and multiplied by an average H-bomb yield to get that number.

Ah! That makes sense.

No, I don't have a good recollection of our previous conversation, by the way. Sorry.

Orbiting the sun is not so difficult at you make it out to be.
Once an object is outside of earth's field of influence... the sun's takes over.

Well, the problem isn't merely achieving orbit. Comets aren't merely in orbit around the Sun, they are in very eccentric orbits around the Sun. Meaning, at some point, they were falling nearly straight at the Sun and only narrowly (by solar systems scales) missed hitting the Sun. That means that if that comet began on Earth, nearly all of the object's momentum that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth would have had to be cancelled out. That's the hard part. It will have had to be sent off the surface of Earth at something approaching 18 miles per second in the opposite direction to the Earth's travel around the Sun.

I realized recently that this is exactly where you have gone wrong. It was NOT instantaneous. Just like the 40 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN was not instantaneous. The launching of matter from the earth happened during the SAME time period.

No. We are talking about an explosive decompression event that would have had to impart sufficient energy to these objects to immediately send them off the planet in a manner that achieves these eccentric orbits that they're in today.

Why does Dr. Brown need to explain anything? He does so because his theory explains a great deal about the events associated with the flood.

It just seems like the addition of an explanation of the origin of comets is a stretch that isn't needed. Seems to me that the theory would be well served to drop that aspect of it.

He's not... He says that asteroids were also created during and by the events associated with the flood.
https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html

It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

Why then doesn't he believe that Mars used to be a part of the Earth or Venus or Mercury?

Prediction: Any answer you give to that question will apply equally as well to asteroids and comets.

Because Dr. Brown has a better explanation than just "God did it".

I'm not convinced its better.

HPT explains exactly what we should expect to find and what we do find with regard to the composition of these various objects in our solar system.

Predictions are important for any theory but so is explaining how it could ever actually happen. If your theory breaks the laws of physics, then such successful predictions are merely coincidental.

 

[Right Divider]

Even if that were true, it's the same thing. His education vs mine is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that which is in dispute.

No, I was NOT saying that it's true because he's smart.

My point, which I will try to make again, is that if what you say is true (that he's wrong about some of earth being launched into space to form asteroids and comets, etc.), then that is a MAJOR BLUNDER and I wonder why you would accept his theory at all.

No, I don't have a good recollection of our previous conversation, by the way. Sorry.

No problem.

Well, the problem isn't merely achieving orbit. Comets aren't merely in orbit around the Sun, they are in very eccentric orbits around the Sun. Meaning, at some point, they were falling nearly straight at the Sun and only narrowly (by solar systems scales) missed hitting the Sun. That means that if that comet began on Earth, nearly all of the object's momentum that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth would have had to be cancelled out. That's the hard part.

No, it's not hard. Matter was ejected in all directions and varying speeds. Again, see the part of the video about short, medium and long period comets. It explains that all very well.

For example, short period comets are 97% pro-grade. Whereas, long period comets are about half pro-grade and half retro-grade (53/47). That is likely due to the velocity of their ejection from earth. That explains your "cancelling out". Not so hard after all.

It will have had to be sent off the surface of Earth at something approaching 18 miles per second in the opposite direction to the Earth's travel around the Sun.

That is not a problem at all and I cannot understand why you are having a hard time seeing that.

No. We are talking about an explosive decompression event that would have had to impart sufficient energy to these objects to immediately send them off the planet in a manner that achieves these eccentric orbits that they're in today.

Again, it seems that the only problem is your inability to understand the physics and not the facts of the case.

It just seems like the addition of an explanation of the origin of comets is a stretch that isn't needed. Seems to me that the theory would be well served to drop that aspect of it.

This reminds me of your comments about people claiming miracles that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. A similar problem exists for saying that "God did it" without any evidence for that. Dr. Brown's explanations make perfect sense despite your claims of incredulity.

It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

No, it doesn't.

Why then doesn't he believe that Mars used to be a part of the Earth or Venus or Mercury?

At least the planets are mentioned in the Bible. 2 Kings 23:5

Also note that the physical makeup of comets, asteroids and meteors matches very closely with the composition of earth... unlike the other planets in our solar system that are vastly different. See In the Beginning, 9th edition, pages 122 and 310.

Prediction: Any answer you give to that question will apply equally as well to asteroids and comets.

False.

I'm not convinced its better.

See my comment above about claiming miracles without support.

Predictions are important for any theory but so is explaining how it could ever actually happen.

And Dr. Brown has explained how it could happen but you rejected it because you find it unbelievable. i.e. appeal to the stone.

If your theory breaks the laws of physics, then such successful predictions are merely coincidental.

It does NOT break the laws of physics. That has been my claim all along.

 

[Right Divider]

Things that comets, asteroids, meteors and interstellar dust have in common with earth:

 

[Right Divider]

I've been doing some re-reading of In the Beginning and noted these details:

• The escape velocity for earth is ~7 miles/second.
• The velocity of the earth orbiting the sun is ~18.6 miles/second.
• Dr. Brown says that the events during the bursting forth of the great deep achieved velocities of at least 32 miles/second.

​

See item 5 on page 319 of In the Beginning, 9th edition.​

​

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll watch the videos again.

Consider also:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Rocket Science

 

[Clete]

No, I was NOT saying that it's true because he's smart.

My point, which I will try to make again, is that if what you say is true (that he's wrong about some of earth being launched into space to form asteroids and comets, etc.), then that is a MAJOR BLUNDER and I wonder why you would accept his theory at all.

Two things.

First I'm not so sure that it's that huge of a blunder.
Second, I'm not so sure that my objection is valid.

In fact, the most important factor in my skepticism on the theories ideas about the origin of comets and asteroids has to do with the fact that no one seems to be able to debunk my objections and every attempt that has been made has had the effect of increasing the complexity of the problem and thereby deepening my skepticism.

An excellent example of this complicating effect was present in those two videos, which I did watch by the way, where the notion that this explosive decompression event that sent these objects into space didn't happen in a few minutes or hours but over weeks or even months. That seems to me that it makes the problem so much worse that I have a hard time even articulating it. I've been talking about a single energy release that is incomprehensible and now I'm realizing that the theory would call for a similar amount of energy being continuously released for weeks and weeks sending, not one or two, or dozens or even hundreds of comments but literally tens of thousands, perhaps millions of objects into orbit.

Incidentally, the mass of the asteroid belt is about 3x10^22 kilograms. That's a tiny amount in comparison to the mass of the Earth but it is still and enormous about of mass when you have to figure out how to get it off of the Earth and into orbit. Again the energies involved are, well, amazing, to say the least. Not only that, but the video correctly point out that the material would have been sent out in all directions randomly, initially forming a spherical shell rather than a ring around the Sun, which, if Chat GPTs math is correct, would have required about 11 times as much mass as is currently in the asteroid belt.

One last point about the video....

It assumes that the asteroids are gravitational accretions of material. This is another process that I am extremely skeptical about for reasons that have nothing to do with the Hydroplate Theory.

No, it's not hard. Matter was ejected in all directions and varying speeds. Again, see the part of the video about short, medium and long period comets. It explains that all very well.

For example, short period comets are 97% pro-grade. Whereas, long period comets are about half pro-grade and half retro-grade (53/47). That is likely due to the velocity of their ejection from earth. That explains your "cancelling out". Not so hard after all.

This is a terrific example of something I mentioned in a previous post about the theory just stating that something happened without giving any information about how it could have actually occurred.

I understand that stuff would have been sent in all directions and that the stuff that was sent in the opposite direction of Earth's travel would have had that part of its momentum cancelled out. That much makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is the amount of energy it would have required to cancel out all of (or nearly all of) that momentum. 18+ miles per second is not a small amount of momentum to overcome and according to Dr. Brown, some of these objects would have achieved velocities nearly twice that!

What he doesn't explain is how, apart from simply claiming that it was the released of very super critical water from beneath the Earth's surface. That may or may not be a sufficient energy source but whether it is or not, what isn't explained is how the delivery of that amount of energy to chunks of the Earth wouldn't have simply vaporized the chunks rather than sending them into orbit.

There's another problem with this idea that I haven't bothered to mention before now. Even if chunks of Earth could be sent, intact, into orbit in this manner, it would be a rather small percentage of the overall material that would have achieved stable orbits. Most of any material that was sent flying would have ended up back on Earth and it would have impacted the Earth with a large percentage of the energy it left with. It short, it would have be 40 days and 40 nights of rocks and boulders raining down onto the Earth. Something that I don't believe that there is any evidence for.

That is not a problem at all and I cannot understand why you are having a hard time seeing that.

The direction is easy. The energies requires to achieve the required velocities, not so much.

Again, it seems that the only problem is your inability to understand the physics and not the facts of the case.

Facts?

I understand the ideas of the theory, it's the how that's given me trouble. Even if the energies count be achieved, the instantaneous nature of that energy's delivery to the object would have disintegrated (vaporized) it before sending it into orbit around the Sun. I've have an easier time believing it was possible if comets and asteroids were chucks of iron but they aren't. They're made of ordinary rock. Stuff that vaporizes at around 4000° F (less than that in space). That, and water ice which I presume would have had to gravitationally accrete to the asteroid or comet after it cooled down which would have taken centuries.

This reminds me of your comments about people claiming miracles that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. A similar problem exists for saying that "God did it" without any evidence for that. Dr. Brown's explanations make perfect sense despite your claims of incredulity.

You don't believe that God put the planets in their place?

That was rhetorical. Of course I know you do believe that. The point is.... Where's the need to explain only some of the bodies in the solar system? And if one's objections to the notion that "God did it" is valid for those few hundreds of thousands of objects, then why wouldn't the same objection be valid for the other few dozen objects that remain? Why is it valid to believe that God created Jupiter but invalid to believe He created Ceres?

At least the planets are mentioned in the Bible. 2 Kings 23:5

Dangerously close to an argument from silence there.

Also note that the physical makeup of comets, asteroids and meteors matches very closely with the composition of earth... unlike the other planets in our solar system that are vastly different. See In the Beginning, 9th edition, pages 122 and 310.

The Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars and Pluto are not "vastly" different and the sampling we have of comets and asteroids is insufficient to say that they are all "very closely match" the composition of the Earth and even if they did, it would be a problem for the HPT not a help because all that material WOULD HAVE melted, if not vaporized, had they been subjected to sufficient explosive force to send it all into orbit around the Sun.

False.

As demonstrated above, it isn't false, its entirely true.

See my comment above about claiming miracles without support.

Like the existence of Mars is a miracle?

And Dr. Brown has explained how it could happen but you rejected it because you find it unbelievable. i.e. appeal to the stone.

I don't merely find it unbelievable as if I just "feel" like its a fairy tale. I don't believe it because the energies involved are probably impossible to begin with and even if such energies could be applied to chucks of the Earth the result would have been to sublimate the material directly into a gaseous state rather than to deliver them intact into an sort of orbit, much less very eccentric ones or ones beyond the orbit of Mars.

It does NOT break the laws of physics. That has been my claim all along.

I think we have sufficient experiment evidence to prove that it would. Early on, I cited an example of laboratory experiments where metal projectiles where accelerated to speeds less than half of what we're talking about and the result was the obliteration of the projectile upon impact. The reason that's relevant is that the near instantaneous application of these energies would have been more like an impact than what one might think of as a launching. These projectile vaporize at impact speeds of something around 1000 meters per second, while the theory talks about the application of energies that would need to immediately accelerate these objects to somthing like 29,000 meters per second.

So imagine hitting a baseball so hard that it would come off the bat at 18 miles per second. Even if the baseball was made of iron, it would melt, if not vaporize and not because of friction with the atmosphere (although, that too) but just because of the application of such a gigantic amount of energy.

 

[Right Divider]

Two things.

First I'm not so sure that it's that huge of a blunder.

Dr. Brown has an entire chapter of extremely detailed explanations (and calculations) of why the comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's all came from earth. So, YES, if they did NOT... that is a HUGE BLUNDER.

Second, I'm not so sure that my objection is valid.

On this we can agree.

In fact, the most important factor in my skepticism on the theories ideas about the origin of comets and asteroids has to do with the fact that no one seems to be able to debunk my objections and every attempt that has been made has had the effect of increasing the complexity of the problem and thereby deepening my skepticism.

Dr. Brown's entire book debunks your objections.

An excellent example of this complicating effect was present in those two videos, which I did watch by the way, where the notion that this explosive decompression event that sent these objects into space didn't happen in a few minutes or hours but over weeks or even months.

Indeed, the heavy rain caused by this event lasted for 40 DAYS.
Again, the launching of this planetary debris was not instantaneous.

That seems to me that it makes the problem so much worse that I have a hard time even articulating it. I've been talking about a single energy release that is incomprehensible and now I'm realizing that the theory would call for a similar amount of energy being continuously released for weeks and weeks sending, not one or two, or dozens or even hundreds of comments but literally tens of thousands, perhaps millions of objects into orbit.

Again, that is all clearly explained in In the Beginning (and in the videos).

Incidentally, the mass of the asteroid belt is about 3x10^22 kilograms. That's a tiny amount in comparison to the mass of the Earth but it is still and enormous about of mass when you have to figure out how to get it off of the Earth and into orbit. Again the energies involved are, well, amazing, to say the least. Not only that, but the video correctly point out that the material would have been sent out in all directions randomly, initially forming a spherical shell rather than a ring around the Sun, which, if Chat GPTs math is correct, would have required about 11 times as much mass as is currently in the asteroid belt.

• So, again, your primary argument is that it's hard for you to believe.
• I'll take Dr. Brown over Chat GPT any day.

One last point about the video....

It assumes that the asteroids are gravitational accretions of material. This is another process that I am extremely skeptical about for reasons that have nothing to do with the Hydroplate Theory.

Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.

This is a terrific example of something I mentioned in a previous post about the theory just stating that something happened without giving any information about how it could have actually occurred.

Dr. Brown gives LOTS of information about how it could happen.

I understand that stuff would have been sent in all directions and that the stuff that was sent in the opposite direction of Earth's travel would have had that part of its momentum cancelled out.

Or in the case of the highest velocity objects MORE than ALL or its momentum canceled out. That is what allows some comets to move in a retro-grade orbit.

That much makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is the amount of energy it would have required to cancel out all of (or nearly all of) that momentum. 18+ miles per second is not a small amount of momentum to overcome and according to Dr. Brown, some of these objects would have achieved velocities nearly twice that!

Yes, and he explains it all very well.

What he doesn't explain is how, apart from simply claiming that it was the released of very super critical water from beneath the Earth's surface.

Apparently, you've not thoroughly read the book or thoroughly watched the video as the super critical water was NOT the only source of energy.

See "Energy Available" beginning on page 599 of In the Beginning, 9th edition.

That may or may not be a sufficient energy source but whether it is or not, what isn't explained is how the delivery of that amount of energy to chunks of the Earth wouldn't have simply vaporized the chunks rather than sending them into orbit.

This claim is without merit.

There's another problem with this idea that I haven't bothered to mention before now. Even if chunks of Earth could be sent, intact, into orbit in this manner, it would be a rather small percentage of the overall material that would have achieved stable orbits.

Many of the orbits are not so stable. These objects are being destroyed all of the time by gravitational attractions of Jupiter and Saturn. Some crashed directly into the Sun. And some did fall back to earth.

Most of any material that was sent flying would have ended up back on Earth and it would have impacted the Earth with a large percentage of the energy it left with.

Only for those that did not reach escape velocity.

It short, it would have be 40 days and 40 nights of rocks and boulders raining down onto the Earth. Something that I don't believe that there is any evidence for.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

The direction is easy. The energies requires to achieve the required velocities, not so much.

Again, Dr. Brown explains it quite completely.

Facts?

I understand the ideas of the theory, it's the how that's given me trouble. Even if the energies count be achieved, the instantaneous nature of that energy's delivery to the object would have disintegrated (vaporized) it before sending it into orbit around the Sun.

There you are back to "instantaneous"... it wasn't. For example, the expansion of the SCW happens over time and NOT instantaneously.

I've have an easier time believing it was possible if comets and asteroids were chucks of iron but they aren't. They're made of ordinary rock. Stuff that vaporizes at around 4000° F (less than that in space).

How is 4000° F achieved in this case? It's not.

That, and water ice which I presume would have had to gravitationally accrete to the asteroid or comet after it cooled down which would have taken centuries.

In the cold of space... absolutely NOT!

You don't believe that God put the planets in their place?

That was rhetorical. Of course I know you do believe that. The point is.... Where's the need to explain only some of the bodies in the solar system? And if one's objections to the notion that "God did it" is valid for those few hundreds of thousands of objects, then why wouldn't the same objection be valid for the other few dozen objects that remain? Why is it valid to believe that God created Jupiter but invalid to believe He created Ceres?

It's easy to believe that God created the earth, Sun, moon and planets. It's a little harder to believe that He "created" a whole lot of planetary debris in His "very good" creation.

Dangerously close to an argument from silence there.

How so?

The Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars and Pluto are not "vastly" different and the sampling we have of comets and asteroids is insufficient to say that they are all "very closely match" the composition of the Earth and even if they did, it would be a problem for the HPT not a help because all that material WOULD HAVE melted, if not vaporized, had they been subjected to sufficient explosive force to send it all into orbit around the Sun.

Again, your "vaporized" theory does not hold water.

Also, Pluto should be a lot like earth, it came from earth.

Like the existence of Mars is a miracle?

What Biblical support do you have that God created vast amounts of planetary debris as part of His very good creation?

I don't merely find it unbelievable as if I just "feel" like its a fairy tale. I don't believe it because the energies involved are probably impossible to begin with and even if such energies could be applied to chucks of the Earth the result would have been to sublimate the material directly into a gaseous state rather than to deliver them intact into an sort of orbit, much less very eccentric ones or ones beyond the orbit of Mars.

Again, it's strange to me that you think that Dr. Brown is incapable understanding that... if it was true.

If you think that Dr. Brown is so wrong about this part of his theory, then you should definitely not believe HPT as a whole.

 

[Right Divider]

From "The Origin of Comets" page 303, In the Beginning, 9th edition

SUMMARY: Past explanations for how comets began have serious problems. After a review of some facts concerning comets, a new explanation for comets will be proposed and tested. During the first weeks of the flood, the fountains of the great deep launched water, rocks, and muddy droplets that later gravitationally merged around the larger rocks. The fountains expelled an “ocean” of high-pressure, supercritical water that jetted up through the atmosphere and into the vacuum of space. Today, these merged bodies match comets in size, number, density, composition, spin, texture, strength, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and orbital characteristics. After a comparison of theories with evidence, problems with the earlier explanations will become obvious.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.

I think you mean argument from incredulity...

 

[Right Divider]

I think you mean argument from incredulity...

Yes, you are correct.

 

[Clete]

Dr. Brown has an entire chapter of extremely detailed explanations (and calculations) of why the comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's all came from earth. So, YES, if they did NOT... that is a HUGE BLUNDER.

No, it would be just one, more or less ancillary, aspect of the theory that was incorrect. The origin of comets is in no way foundational to the theory.

Dr. Brown's entire book debunks your objections.

On the contrary, the book is what engendered my objections. More precisely, the books lack of evidentiary argument. In short, it makes the claim that these things happened but does begin to address the issues I've brought up here.

Indeed, the heavy rain caused by this event lasted for 40 DAYS.

Rain falling for weeks would not be surprising given the atmosphere's ability to carry water vapor all around the planet and to condense it into rain and probably a half a dozen or more other processes that could account for that much water falling as rain. There is no reason to believe, nor does the HPT suggest, that I recall, that water was being shot out of these fountains for the entire duration of the flood.

Further, as I said before, water wouldn't have been the only thing flung all around the world. There is no record in scripture of the flood including rocks falling from heaven for most of a year, which certainly would have been the case if any percentage of that material at all was sent into orbit.

Again, the launching of this planetary debris was not instantaneous.

Yes it would have had to have been or very nearly so. Even if the fountains themselves kept on going for however long, the water, the water vapor and anything else that came out from under the surface would have immediately began to loose momentum as soon as left the pressure vessel.
It would have worked like any other fountain you've ever seen. As soon as the water leaves the spout, that's the fastest its ever going to be going. As soon as a bullet leaves the barrel of a gun, it's finished accelerating, regardless of how much gun powder (fuel/energy source) there is left to burn. Thus, whatever velocity these objects had when they left the surface of the Earth is the maximum velocity they would ever see until they were in space and found themselves falling in toward the Sun.

Which, incidentally, brings up yet another problem for this theory. Let's say that an object the size of Halley's comet was ejected from Earth at some significant percentage of Earth's orbital velocity but in the retrograde direction such that it slowed way down relative to the Sun. At that point it would begin falling toward the Sun but wouldn't actually hit the Sun. It would swing around the back side of the Sun and start heading back out away from the Sun just as you'd expect in any orbit. How far away from the Sun would it go before it stopped and started falling back toward the Sun again? Where would it's Aphelion point be? Would it be multiple times further away from the Sun than Earth's orbit or would it be at a point inside Earth's orbit?

In such a scenario, it would definitely be the latter. Therefore, since Hally's comet goes several times (35X) further away from the Sun than Earth's orbit, that means it would have had to be shot off the Earth in a direction that would have been the equivalent of the speed and direction it would have been going relative to the Sun if it had already been in that orbit all along (including the gravitational effects of being so close to Earth at that moment). Guess what that means? Even more energy is required! A whole lot more. Even if Halley's comet was made of titanium, it would have been vaporized by the shock of such enormous energies being applied to it over such short periods of time as would have been involved in shooting it out of the equivalent of a planet sized, super-critical Super Soaker.

Again, that is all clearly explained in In the Beginning (and in the videos).

• So, again, your primary argument is that it's hard for you to believe.

That is not my argument at all. I've have not said that! I've made a very clear argument here and nowhere have I even suggested that my argument is based on my feelings or my beliefs or any other such flimsy crap!

My arguments have to do with the melting (and vapor) points of rock (not to mention water). It has to do with the ability of rock to molecularity hold itself together under the sort of stresses that it would take to blast it from a stand still (relative to Earth) to well over 18 miles per second, together with the known fact that when similar stresses (but at much much lower energies) turn stainless steal (a much stronger material than the rock and water ice that comets are made of) into clouds of gas and super hot plasma.

• I'll take Dr. Brown over Chat GPT any day.

Silly. It's just math. I simply asked it to calculate how much mass it would take to make a spherical shell of the same density as the disk of material that we call the asteroid belt. It did the math and came up with about 11 times as much material would be needed. So, that would end up being about 44% or so of the mass of the Moon that would have left the Earth to make what would eventually become the asteroid belt, which currently is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon.

Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.

Saying it doesn't make it so. I have made an affirmative argument. I've done far more than merely claim that it is absurd or inplausible. If you make this claim again, you'll be guilty of a lie. You know better.

Dr. Brown gives LOTS of information about how it could happen.

No, he gives lots of information about WHAT he believes happened, not HOW such events would actually be physically possible. The closest he gets to a how is to posit a power source but that isn't 1% of the way towards explaining the forces involved and what affect those forces would have when applied to real objects in real time.

Or in the case of the highest velocity objects MORE than ALL or its momentum canceled out. That is what allows some comets to move in a retro-grade orbit.

Not just retrograde but extremely eccentric orbits that I'm not even sure would be possible to create from the Earth's distance from the Sun at all.

Yes, and he explains it all very well.

Apparently, you've not thoroughly read the book or thoroughly watched the video as the super critical water was NOT the only source of energy.

See "Energy Available" beginning on page 599 of In the Beginning, 9th edition.

This claim is without merit.

Many of the orbits are not so stable. These objects are being destroyed all of the time by gravitational attractions of Jupiter and Saturn. Some crashed directly into the Sun. And some did fall back to earth.

Only for those that did not reach escape velocity.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Again, Dr. Brown explains it quite completely.

There you are back to "instantaneous"... it wasn't. For example, the expansion of the SCW happens over time and NOT instantaneously.

How is 4000° F achieved in this case? It's not.

In the cold of space... absolutely NOT!

It's easy to believe that God created the earth, Sun, moon and planets. It's a little harder to believe that He "created" a whole lot of planetary debris in His "very good" creation.

How so?

Again, your "vaporized" theory does not hold water.

Also, Pluto should be a lot like earth, it came from earth.

What Biblical support do you have that God created vast amounts of planetary debris as part of His very good creation?

Again, it's strange to me that you think that Dr. Brown is incapable understanding that... if it was true.

If you think that Dr. Brown is so wrong about this part of his theory, then you should definitely not believe HPT as a whole.

I'm out of time and this all just sort of rehashes everything and refutes none of what I've said. For now, I offer the following answer I got after asking ChatGPT whether it would be theoretically possible to launch a Halley's comet sized piece of material from Earth in such a way that it achieves Halley's current orbit. Here's the answer it gave....

Launching Halley's Comet from Earth and placing it into its current orbit around the Sun would be theoretically extremely challenging, if not practically impossible, due to several reasons:

1. Energy Requirements:​

• The energy required to move an object as massive as Halley's Comet (about 2.2×10^14 kg) from Earth and place it into its current orbit would be astronomical.
• The energy needed would be far beyond anything humanity could currently produce. To give you a sense, the energy we calculated (≈1.10×10^22 joules) just for the comet's gravitational binding energy is already beyond the global annual energy consumption by orders of magnitude.

2. Orbital Mechanics:​

• Halley's Comet follows a highly elliptical orbit, with its perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) at about 0.59 AU (astronomical units) and its aphelion (farthest point) at about 35 AU. To achieve this orbit, a spacecraft would need to provide the comet with the correct velocity and direction, considering the gravitational influences of the Sun and other planets.
• Achieving such an orbit from Earth would require extremely precise calculations and an immense amount of energy to accelerate the comet to the necessary speed and trajectory.

3. Structural Integrity:​

• Even if it were possible to launch such a large object, the forces involved in accelerating Halley's Comet to the required speeds would likely cause it to break apart. Comets are generally loosely bound agglomerations of ice, dust, and rocky material, which are not well-suited to withstand the stresses of such a launch.

I went on to ask it to calculate the amount of energy it would actually take given what it said in point 2, but I guess I've asked it too many questions today. It told me that I've reached my data analysis limit and would have to ask some other time. Fortunately, the hard numbers aren't needed to make the point. Those three points restate my objections quite well (not counting the points about what energies humanity could produce or trajectories we could calculate, which is irrelevant to our discussion).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Silly. It's just math. I simply asked it to calculate how much mass it would take to make a spherical shell of the same density as the disk of material that we call the asteroid belt. It did the math and came up with about 11 times as much material would be needed. So, that would end up being about 44% or so of the mass of the Moon that would have left the Earth to make what would eventually become the asteroid belt, which currently is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon.

Be careful with ChatGPT.

It can get things right.

It can get things wrong.

It can also get things wrong, and be highly confident that it's right.

In other words, take what it says with a pinch of salt, and verify what it outputs to be correct, instead of just automatically assuming that it's correct.

Just because you're asking it to do math equations doesn't mean that it (a Large Language Model (LLM)) can do the math correctly.

LLMs do hallucinate (meaning, they confidently state things that are incorrect). A simple example of this is where it will confidently assert that 2+2=5.

 

[Clete]

Be careful with ChatGPT.

It can get things right.

It can get things wrong.

It can also get things wrong, and be highly confident that it's right.

In other words, take what it says with a pinch of salt, and verify what it outputs to be correct, instead of just automatically assuming that it's correct.

I've used it quite a lot for various things. It's right a lot more than not IF you ask the questions correctly. The prompt (i.e. the question you ask) is enormously important and if you ask the same question a second (or sometimes a third time) in the same exchange, it gets better at figuring out what it is you're actually asking.

Just because you're asking it to do math equations doesn't mean that it (a Large Language Model (LLM)) can do the math correctly.

Actually, math and data analysis is one of the things it does best and most reliably, which is why it limits the amount of data analysis you can do with it without paying for it. Anything like math or reporting straight facts is the sort of thing the free version of ChatGPT should mostly be used for precisely because it doesn't call for it to act too much like a human being. Asking it questions that don't require it to offer opinions or to take a side or to be intuitive in any way is the best practice.

For example, if I asked ChatGPT whether its required for a gate to self-close and latch if the back yard it leads to has a swimming pool, then I might get a good answer and I might not. It may be required to ask clarifying questions or to tell it to check itself to make certain that its given a correct answer. If, on the other hand, I ask it to tell me what the IRC code is concerning gates to back yards that have a swimming pool then it will give me an answer based on that code and then I can ask it to actually quote the code itself, which it will do and I'll have a perfectly accurate answer to my question.

LLMs do hallucinate (meaning, they confidently state things that are incorrect). A simple example of this is where it will confidently assert that 2+2=5.

I've seen similar accusations, but I've never been able to get ChatGPT to give me blatantly false answers like that. The closest I've come is on one of the AI image generator apps where if you asked for an image of George Washington, you'd get an image of a black man dressed in 18th century military uniform or something similar. An issue that I'd bet been fixed and that only ever existed because of the political bias of those behind the scenes. In short, don't trust ChatGPT with anything that touches anything remotely associated with politics or any social issue.

The bottom line is that ChatGPT sucks at discussing politics or figuring out which cookie recipe is best (i.e. human stuff) but it's good at finding online reference materials, its pretty good as correcting grammar and writing emails or essays and its really very good at being a computer. If it were nearly as incompetent as it would need to be to get 2+2=4 wrong, then it would be entirely worthless and no one would use it.

 

[Right Divider]

3. Structural Integrity:​

• Even if it were possible to launch such a large object, the forces involved in accelerating Halley's Comet to the required speeds would likely cause it to break apart. Comets are generally loosely bound agglomerations of ice, dust, and rocky material, which are not well-suited to withstand the stresses of such a launch.

It appears, again, that you simply do NOT understand Dr. Brown's theory at all. Either you have not read his book carefully or really paid careful attention to the videos.

Halley's Comet did NOT become Halley's comet until long after its component parts were launched from earth.