-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
I understand that specific point but GPT's comment isn't quite the point I'm making.
First of all, I do not believe that comets are collections of loosely bound rocks, dust and ice but leaving that aside and granting the notion for the sake of argument, the point I am making is that there wouldn't have been any rock or dust. That material would have been vaporized before it got 100 meters off the ground if the required kinds of energies were applied in the near instantaneous manner that being released from a pressure vessel would require. I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown's material doesn't have anything in it about gaseous clouds of material condensing back into rocks, dust and water ice that then accreted into comets.
I HAVE seen these videos before and I have read the entire book, which I own two copies of.
I'm telling you, I understand the theory and I'm telling you that it (the formation of what would become comets and asteroids) cannot have happened the way the theory proposes. It makes logical sense but it is not practicable. That is, it cannot happen in reality. The forces involved would have effects other than to send trillions of tons of material intact into orbit around the Sun. I would, instead melt and/or vaporize the material.
If there were some sort of jet that could accelerate that material into orbit, that would be different but that isn't the way pressure vessels work. It would be no different that shooting a projectile out of a pistol. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel (i.e. the pressure vessel) then the energy is finished accelerating the projectile. A bullet is going as fast as its going to go the moment it leaves the barrel because the force of the pressure gets pushed out in all directions and is no longer being focused on the back end of the bullet. The same would be true of these materials being sent off the surface of Earth into orbit around the Sun. Whatever momentum that would be needed to achieve such an orbit will have had to be imparted to that material as it was being pushed out of the pressure vessel, which, at those speeds, could not have been more than a few microseconds because at 18 miles a second, which is the minimum speed it would have needed, it would be a fully out of our atmosphere and into space in less than 1 second.
And so, to reiterate, it isn't just the energy levels, its the time in which that amount of energy is imparted. The stresses would probably not even stopped at vaporizing the material. I wouldn't be surprised if such forces were sufficient to strip the material of its electrons and turn it all into a big ball of plasma.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't understand this sentence.
Then you are denying the obvious discovery's that have been made in the last 20 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubble_pile
Yes, there is.
Again, you make this claim repeatedly. It's simply not true.
Your surety is unfounded since it does indeed say just that. That is why Bryan Nickel includes that in his videos. Bryan consults with Dr. Brown to verify the accuracy of his video work.
Note that it does NOT say that "it condensed back into rock". It says that comets and asteroids (as well as TNO's) are "flying rock piles held together with water ice". See Prediction #20 on page 340 of In the Beginning, 9th edition as one example.
Note also that Dr. Brown calls them "rock piles" twelve times throughout the book.
I've probably already quoted this, but here it is again in Dr. Brown's summary of "The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects" (from Page 339 of In the Beginning, 9th edition):
SUMMARY: The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and muddy water into space. As rocks moved farther from Earth, Earth’s gravity became less significant to them, and the gravity of nearby rocks became increasingly significant. Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor that produced aerobraking, merged to become asteroids. (Isolated rocks in space are meteoroids.) Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated most smaller asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. Larger asteroids were acted on longer by more powerful forces which pushed them out beyond Neptune’s orbit. All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects) resulted from the explosive events as the flood began.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Clearly, you have only skimmed the book, since there are many things that you missed.
Again, concentrate on the part of the video that talks about the orbits of two particular comets. FOCUS on the facts that are presented there!
Why? Is it again because you find it incredible?
False.
Again with your repeated "false facts".
Focus on the correlation and try to disprove that.
I continue to find it incredible that you think that Dr. Brown is SO profoundly wrong about this. I find his explanation far more credible than yours (i.e., that God created a whole lot of planetary debris in His very good creation).
I do not merely make the claim, I make an argument to support it. An argument you've not responded to except to claim that it "simply isn't true".
Yes it is true. It absolutely has to be true. I cannot be otherwise.
If you think otherwise then you tell me how any material exploded off the top of any pressure vessel is accelerated for any length of time longer than it takes for the explosion to happen.
Does the water coming out of your garden hose accelerate AFTER it leaves the hose?
No, it doesn't!
Do the bullets in the guns you own accelerate once they've left the barrel?
No, they don't!
If the pressure cooker at KFC explodes and sends chicken a mile into the sky, did it accelerate on it way up or was it going at its top speed a millionth of the second after the pot exploded?
IT DID NOT ACCELERATE ON THE WAY UP!!! Quite the opposite!
I do not believe you.
Where does it say anything about gaseous minerals condensing back into rock and dust.
Yeah, I know it doesn't. Nor does it say anything else similar to that or else you'd have pointed out weeks ago.
As I said, there would have been no wet rock to pile up and then freeze into place.
Precisely!
There wouldn't have been any rock! It would have been gaseous clouds of what used to be rock.
Again, this portion of the theory is a solution in need of a problem; it is based, at least in part, on conventional wisdom in regards to what comets and asteroids are made of; and it completely ignores the physics involved in "launching" large masses of material into space using what would have been the equivalent of a very inefficient shot gun blast.
Clete, you keep hinting at a belief that the acceleration was instantaneous.
The HPT does not assert that it was.
Consider the rail-mounted guns developed by the Germans in WW2.
They were designed to launch projectiles long ranges without vaporizing them in the process.
They did so by having extremely long barrels.
The HPT asserts that there was a roughly 60-mile "barrel" that was the crack in the earth's crust that would have accelerated the supercritical fluids from beneath the crust to escape velocities and higher.
In other words, your "immediate acceleration would vaporize the material" objection doesn't apply to at least most of the material ejected with the Fountains, even accounting for the spikes in pressure caused by the "fluttering" of the crust as the SCFs escaped.
You can accelerate something quite a lot over a distance of 60 miles, even without super high amounts of energy being applied constantly.
The "rocket science" of it all is here.
More technical notes links:
I read every syllable of it. Every single syllable.
It has been years ago. When it was new but I did read every single word.
It is irrelevant because the material could never have made it off the planet in the form of rock and dust (much less liguid water or ice) given the proposed method of getting it there.
No, because the stresses involved in applying those kinds of energies in the short periods of time would have vaporized the material rather than delivering it intact into an orbit around the Sun.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
We have in the lab proof that materials much tougher than rock (never mind water) turn into gas and plasma when subject to similar kinds of stresses at far smaller energy levels.
It is not relevant to my argument.
Even if those comets came from the Earth, which I do not believe, then they left by some other means that being pushed out of a pressure vessel.
About this specific point.
Who says it's debris? Are the rings of Saturn "debris"? How about the rings around Jupiter and Neptune and Uranus? If you call them debris, do you also believe that material came from Noah flood? If you don't call them debris then on what basis do you call the asteroids debris, which are nothing more than a ring around the Sun (a full third of which is contained within a single body (Ceres) by the way).
It isn't "debris" (in the sense of trash or garbage or whatever other negative connotation would want to assign, its simply rocks in orbit around the Sun. Some of which (comets) good easily be used as signs, just as the bible states is the purpose of celestial objects. The solar system is just how God designed it to be. The moniker of "debris" is given to various objects arbitrarily and is used to make an emotional impact when making the argument that surely God doesn't make "debris". Except that, of course, God does make debris, which is to say that debris is what happens when physical objects interact with one another. God could not have made the physical universe devoid of debris any more than He could have made a living ocean devoid of sea foam. One is the unavoidable product of the other. It is the result of entropy and is very necessary part of God's creation.
This entire post argues MY point!!!!
You are at least beginning to acknowledge the premise!
You say it was a sixty mile barrel along which this material was accelerated. Fine. Let's go with that. Let's also use the 18 miles per second that seems clear is the minimum about of velocity these objects would have needed in order to end up, not merely in space, but in orbit around the Sun. It's actually an number quite substantially higher than that but I suspect that it will do.
How much power would it take to accelerate 3.3×10^22 kg of mass to 18 miles per second in 3.3 seconds (18 miles X 3.3 seconds = 60 miles)?
Power = Energy/Time
We know the energy from calculation was did before. 1.38×10311.38 X 10^31 Joules
Now we know that the time = 3.3 seconds.
Thus the power needed would be 4.20×10^30 watts.
From ChatGPT.... "Is there any know material that could remain in a solid state after having been subjected to that much power?"
Subjecting any material to such an immense amount of power—approximately 4.20×10304.20 \times 10^30 watts—over such a short time would likely vaporize, or even ionize, any known material. This amount of power is orders of magnitude beyond what typical materials, or even the most resilient substances like diamond or tungsten, could withstand while remaining in a solid state. (Emphasis added)
Here’s why:
- Energy Density: The energy density in this scenario is extraordinarily high. The energy applied to the material would cause it to heat up almost instantly to temperatures far beyond what any known material can tolerate without melting, vaporizing, or breaking down into plasma.
- Material Limits: Even the toughest materials known, such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, or synthetic diamonds, would likely break down. At such energy levels, the bonds between atoms would be disrupted, leading to disintegration at the atomic level.
- Nuclear Fusion Context: To put this in perspective, the power involved here is comparable to the energy released in a massive nuclear explosion, which causes materials to transition to plasma almost immediately.
In short, no known material could remain in a solid state when subjected to this amount of power over such a short period.
I don't know how else to prove to you that I am not just making this up and it is not a mere feeling of mine or some other form of frivolous dislike for this portion of Dr. Brown's theory. It sounds good as a hypothesis, but when you do the math and take into consideration the fact that you can't just do anything at all to anything at all and keep that thing intact, it simply doesn't work.
You're talking about accelerating something with a mass of 330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg up to that velocity.
I'm pretty sure there was no one object that large that was ejected, nor does HPT claim there was.
The problem you seem to be having here is that you're trying to have one giant object be accelerated, which will obviously result in ridiculous amounts of energy being required.
Try doing the math for a 2000 kg object (the mass of an average car).
Also keep in mind that some objects did NOT reach escape velocity, while others were flung much farther than the rest.
Oh, and let's not forget that the full amount of energy stored in earth was released over the course of at least 40 days, up to 150 days.
Right Divider
Body part
That's simply incorrect.
Sorry, Chat GPT... you don't know what you're talking about.
Again!!! Nuclear Fusion "context" is an explosion that produces temperatures of 100 MILLION DEGREE
Again, Chat GPT is just completely wrong. You'd be much better served by believing the Ph.D that's spent a great deal of his life analyzing this issue and has spelled it out very clearly in his book. Dr. Brown spends almost 40 pages explaining in great detail why comets and asteroid have their origin in the earth. But you just blow it off as "can't happen in the first place".
P.S. Since when was Chat GPT your all knowing source of information?
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.
Right Divider
Body part
No, that isn't what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be one object. It could be one object or it could be millions of smaller objects. Regardless, the total mass is the same and it would had to have all gone up at pretty much precisely the same time or else it could never have coalesced into a comet or asteroid. If one part left the Earth even 3 seconds after some other part, those parts would end up at least 60 miles apart which would have put them well outside each others gravity wells. If we're talking weeks or months apart, then we're talking parts of what are supposed to coalesce into a comet being many thousands, if not millions of miles from one another.
You keep just increasing the complexity and, in so doing, you make the problem worse for the theory, not better. You are literally suggesting that this material was sent up as though shot from a garden sprinkler head rather than a gun barrel.
The total mass ejected would have been the same and so the total energy would have been the same and it doesn't work to spread it out over weeks or months because then the constituent parts of what's supposed to become a comet would be literally many many thousands of miles apart with no mechanism whatsoever to ever bring them back together again to make the comet. For bodies to coalesce in space (presuming for the sake of argument that they can do so at all) they do have to be in close proximity with each other. Not only that but it has to be a very large cloud of rock and dust, the vast majority of which does not end up being part of the coalesced body but ends up getting ejected out of the system because of a collision here and there and/or because a particular piece that was being gravitationally attracted to the larger body simply missed and was flung off in some random direction. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that water cannot exist as a liquid in space - period. It exists either as a solid or, if the Sun hits it just right, it will sublimate into a gas but the pressures in space are too low for it to ever be a liquid and so how are these collections of rock and dust ever supposed to get cemented together with water ice? (Comets definitely are NOT collections of loosely bound boulders and dust that are cemented together with water ice.)
In short, if the theory is that it was a huge number of car sized objects, ejected over a long period of time then there's a whole new set of problems. Such a solution creates far more problems that it solves, not the least of which is the fact that it would have created a spherical shell of debris around the Earth, long before it ever created a nice ring of stuff around the Sun; a shell of debris that would have rained back down onto the Earth over decades, if not centuries of time. Every night would have been lit up like the fourth of July with the most astounding fireworks show you can imagine. Tens of thousands of meteors an hour burning up in the atmosphere, all day and all night for years and years and years. Also, impacts on the Moon would have been practically continuous as well and easily visible from the Earth. I sort of feel like we'd have found someone who mentioned that sort of stuff being witnessed in history at some point, don't you?
As I write this, more and more things come to mind! For example, there would have been great collections of material find their way to the five different Earth-Sun Lagrange points, where they would have remained to this day. So far as we know there are two and only two Earth Trojans (i.e. asteroids that orbit a Earth Sun Lagrange point), not the thousands that there would be if this portion of Dr. Brown's theory were correct. And that doesn't touch the Earth-Moon Lagrange points or any other Lagrange points throughout the solar system, most of which are empty. The major exceptions being Jupiter's L4 and L5 Lagrange points which do have many thousands of natural objects in them. Dr. Brown, it seems to me, would have a hard time explaining how many tens of thousands of times as much debris from Earth would have ended up in Jupiter's Lagrange points vs. what ended up in Earth's.
Clete
P.S. Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the premise of the objection that I've been making. I feel like we've been mostly talking past one another, so this seems like excellent progress.
I'm not convinced that any such change actually occurred.
Right Divider
Body part
It appears that you simply ignore any evidence contrary to your beliefs.
Genesis 7-8 describe 150 days as precisely 5 months. That is NOT what we observe today.
Last edited:
Saying it doesn't make it so and ChatGPT, while it is what I quoted in my post, is not the source of this objection but rather only serves as a corroborating witness to what I've heard others say in response to these ideas for a long long time.
Well, its the energy that creates the temperature, not the other way around. Indeed, the temperature is just one measure of the energy. That's the whole point here. Temperature is just matter in motion. You impart sufficient energy to a mass and eventually, its sufficient to overcome the electromagnetic force that is holding the electrons in the atom.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I am not simply blowing it off!
Dr. Brown's book does not go into the math. His book doesn't address the effects that such forces would have on the atomic structure of the materials involved. He does not make any such argument. He simply explains that if such and such happened then it would explain this thing and that thing over there. And that isn't a criticism. That's what his book was intended to do. It wasn't written as a super long form scientific paper but as an explanation of the major aspects of his theory explained in mostly layman's terms.
You're over reaction is both silly and telling. I've quoted ChatGPT maybe a dozen times in my whole life and almost all of them have been here on this one thread. It's a resource and a pretty darn good one. Your blowing it off as "just completely wrong" with no evidence or even argument to support such a position is, intellectually dishonest and a waste of time.
If what I've quoted is so wrong then go and find the information that refutes it. The same calculations can be done on several websites that don't pretend to be anything but calculators, which is all I've really used ChatGPT for in this exchange anyway. The fact that it articulated nearly the verbatim points I've been trying to communicate here after having been asked a single question was just pure happenstance. A coincidence that stands, at the very least, as good evidence that my objections aren't me merely "blowing off" these ideas in some frivolous manner.
Last edited:
That was a lie.
I cannot even believe that you, of all people, would have the temerity to say such a thing to me. You know better.
If you can't refute what I've said with evidence then just keep your mouth shut.
This is your evidence?
Do you know how many different definitions of "a month" have existed in history?
Just one of many examples is the Hebrew calendar which is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
Other kinds of "month".....
1. Lunar Month
- Synodic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to complete one full cycle of phases (from new moon to new moon), which is about 29.53 days. This is the basis for the months in many ancient calendars, including the Islamic calendar, which is purely lunar.
- Sidereal Month: The time it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth relative to the fixed stars, approximately 27.32 days.
- Tropical Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same position relative to the celestial equator, around 27.32 days.
- Anomalistic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same point in its elliptical orbit around the Earth, about 27.55 days.
- Draconic Month: The time between successive crossings of the Moon through the same node of its orbit (where it crosses the ecliptic plane), roughly 27.21 days.
2. Solar Month
- Gregorian Month: The months used in the Gregorian calendar, which range from 28 to 31 days. These months are based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun and are designed to align with the solar year.
- Julian Month: Similar to the Gregorian months but used in the Julian calendar, which was in use before the Gregorian reform.
- Ancient Egyptian Month: The Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, plus an additional 5 days added at the end of the year to make 365 days.
3. Lunisolar Month
- Hebrew Month: The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
- Chinese Month: The Chinese calendar is also lunisolar, with months that are either 29 or 30 days long. A leap month is added approximately every three years to align the lunar months with the solar year.
- Babylonian Month: The Babylonians used a lunisolar calendar with 12 months of 29 or 30 days, adding a 13th month periodically to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year.
4. Cultural and Historical Variations
- Mayan Month: The Mayans used a calendar with 18 months of 20 days each, followed by a 19th month with 5 days, totaling 365 days.
- Inca Month: The Inca calendar had 12 months of varying lengths, based on agricultural cycles and lunar observations.
- Ancient Roman Month: Before the Julian reform, the Roman calendar had months of irregular lengths, and the year was sometimes manipulated for political purposes.
NONE of which require the existence of an exactly 360 day year, which there is basically no scientific or historical evidence for. Most of the traditions that suggest a 360 day year make an association between days in a year and the number of degrees in a circle as if there couldn't have been any other reason why someone would have found it convenient to divide a circle into 360 degrees. 360 degrees just happens to be a great number to use for anything that you're dividing because it make it easy to mark out parts of that thing because the number 360 has lots of factors. It is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180 & 360. While 365 can be equally divided by 1, 5, 73 & 365, which is not nearly as convenient and makes basically no sense when the physical size of the divisions would be hardly noticeable on whatever instrument is so divided until you went to actually do math with them, which is the whole point of having them in the first place. (Division is a form of math.)
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Energy does not need to produce heat. Expanding (i.e., energy releasing) SCW is VERY, VERY COLD! It turns into KINETIC energy (due to the EXTREME expansion) and NOT heat.
The energy involved in the bursting forth of the great deep was spread out over a VAST area... i.e., the entire surface of planet earth. It was primarily KINETIC energy. Equating energy to heat is simply wrong.
I'm am genuinely shocked, disapointed, and ashamed of you, RD.
This is the most flat-out dishonest nonsense I've ever seen you post.
Shame on you! You should be embarrassed.