Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory


George Evans wrote:
in article 1156323141.582046.166550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard
Forrest at richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/23/06 1:52 AM:


George Evans wrote:
in article 1156274521.571527.211440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard
Forrest at richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/22/06 12:22 PM:

George Evans wrote:

in article 1OednY9Z-KAWznfZRVn_vQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Noelie S. Alito at
noelie@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/21/06 5:45 PM:

In this case, you have to deal with the total supertonnage of water in
vapor
form in the atmosphere represented by 600,000,000 (600 million) cubic
*kilometers* of water ("half the water in the oceans).

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleoceans.html

Consider the significant blockage of sunlight, the increased air pressure
at
the land surface, and the total energy release of 600,000,000,000,000,000
liters of water dropping an average of a few kilometers to the land
surface.
We're talking a Category 500 hurricane across the whole planet.

OK, I see I've been caught in a slight hyperbole here. This started with a
challenge that you can't get enough water into the atmosphere in order to
rain hard everywhere for 40 days, and in response I threw out the "half"
figure.

Actually, 40 days of rain makes it easy to think about, because 40 feet of
water adds one atmosphere of pressure. So, hypothetically, if you placed 80
feet of pure water in a particulate-free gaseous state above the
atmosphere,
there would be enough to rain two feet a day everywhere for 40 days. That
would triple the atmospheric pressure which would be like an 80 foot scuba
dive (maybe then dragons could fly :-)) Also, the layer should be
transparent.

80 feet of water is not enough to make more than minor changes in the shapes
of the continents, let alone cover the highest mountains. So are we now
supposed to believe that the Himalayan plateau was lifted up 5 kilometers in
a
couple of centuries? How?

My model involves the impact of a number of massive solar system bodies over
a period of approximately half a year.

And your evidence for such impacts is.....?

Craters interspersed in the same formations that fossils are buried in.
Evidence, Richard.

The energy of the impacts, dissipated
by high speed tidal action, direct excavation, and oscillations induced in
the motion of the earth would be the cause of geological reshaping.

And the evidence that bolide impacts leads to orogeny is ......?

Have you heard the one about Bermuda being the rebound peak of a huge crater
of the basically nestled into the Carolina dip of the east coast of the US.
Not my idea. Look at a globe. The guy thinks the impact could be what
created the Appalachian ridge.

Well, that's not an interpretation accepted by many geologists. The
Appalacian ridge is part of an ancient mountain chain, part of which is
now the Scottish Highlands, and was formed when continental plates
collided many hundreds of millions of years ago as part of the process
of forming the supercontinent of Pangea. Pangea subsequently broke up,
and the different parts of the mountain chain ended up on opposite
sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

The way in which evidence was used to unravel of this series of events
is one of the standard case studies in most geology courses,
incidentally.

Where did you say you studied geology?


Next, some team has looked at gasses trapped in Xenon in sand grains in one
of the upper sandstone formations in the western states. It turns out the
sand came from the Appalachians, across the Mississippi and then up and over
the continental divide.

And how do you think this supports your theory of bolide impact
contributing to orogeny?
You *do* know what orogeny means, I suppose?


The rain is merely the first effect caused by dust rising into the upper
atmosphere.

The tectonic motion we see in plates is a remnant of more rapid motion in the
period shortly after the flood as the earth absorbed the excess energy in the
form of massive continental collisions and uplifts.

I suggest that you calculate the kinetic energy of a tectonic plate moving
quickly enough to raise the Himalayan plateau, which has an area of about a
million square kilometers, five kilometers into the air.

Then explain why the earth has not be vapourised.

Let me guess. The amount of kinetic energy would be about to the energy
necessary to raise the Himalayan plateau 5 miles, and the reason the earth
didn't vaporize is BECAUSE the Himalayan plateau raised 5 miles instead.


How do you do that much work without releasing as heat the kinetic
energy of the motion of the plate?

Another basis law of physics bites the dust!

But what you're really worried about is frictional heating as the plate
moves over the asthenosphere and I don't have the foggiest idea how to
determine that.

I've no worries at all about frictional heating. That's why I referred
to kinetic energy. For a continetal plate the size of India to move
across the surface of the earth at speeds great enough to raise the
Himalayan plateau in a few decades requires inconceivably vast and
rapid energy input.

The geology of the Himalayan Massif tells us that it was raised over a
period of about 15 million years. You are proposing a rate 100,000
times faster. As this energy derives from the relative motion of the
tectonic plates which form that part of Asia and India, you need a
speed of motion of the Indian plate relative to the Asian plate 100,000
times faster.

Let's ignore for now the fact that plates *can't* move that quickly -
the physical properties of the earth won't allow it - just consider the
energy involved. The kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional
to the square of the velocity, which means that the energy input
required to move the Indian plate so quickly would be 10,000,000,000
greater than that which accounts for the measured movement of that
plate today (and which is, incidentally, entirely consistent with the
geological timing of events).

The energy input from moving plates drives phenomena such as
earthquakes and volcanos, and what you propose needs to produce and
dissipate through earthquakes and volcanos 10,000,000,000 and times as
much energy.

Can you imagine the effects of 10,000,000,000 times as much volcanic
activity as exists today?


And water vapour may be tranparent to visible light, but it's not
transparent to infra-red. That makes it the most significant greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere.

So you are proposing a climate similar to that of Venus, and a series of
cataclysmic upheavals *after* the flood on a scale many orders of magnitude
greater than anything in recorded history or in the geological record which
somehow didn't attract the attention of the writers of the Bible.

First, this world could stand to be warmer if the warmth could be distributed
better. Flora and fauna obviously thrive in the tropics whereas large areas
near the poles are practically devoid of life. Venus, Richard? Please!

Why on earth *should* the distribution of climates be different? Just to
please you? Venus is hot enough to melt lead because of the greenhouse effect.
You are proposing that there is enough water vapour in the atmosphere to
increase the greenhouse effect on earth by several orders of magnitude.

You have lost your mind.

I'm not the one riding roughshod over all the laws of physics.


Second, the peak cataclysmic upheavals occurred during the five of six month
of water level recession. Through most of that all potential recorders of
history were floating, isolated from any seismic activity. But fortunately
this seems to be nicely recorded in the geological record.

It hasn't. What the geological record shows is many events over a very, very
long period of time. Even the early geologists who looked at the rocks without
the benefit of radiometric dating methods concluded that the earth was very
ancient - hundreds of millions of years at least - based on observations of
existing rates of sedimentation.

Why can't you just expand your thinking a little. Look at that last phrase
you wrote and tell me what that says about compare their model with mine.
Get back to me when you figure it out.

It says that early geologists made estimates for the age of the earth
based on observations of existing rates of sedimentation.

Figure it out.

What they *didn't* do is cherry pick the data, make invalid and inapt
analogies, and ignore evidence which contradicted a priori assumptions
of the age of the earth. They made a genuine attempt to estimate the
age of the earth based on the evidence available.

I will be the first to admit that my hypothesis is wild and crazy compared
to
yours,

It's not a hypothesis. It's an unfounded assertion. Hypotheses start from
the
evidence.

As did this one. When I was a little boy I learned about Noah and the Flood.

That is not evidence.

Yes it is evidence!


No, it's a story in a book. It is not evidence.

You need to get a grasp on the basics of science.

When I got on my own I began noticing geological formations that were
contorted in places and smooth and uniform in others.

So why didn't you bother to find out why such formations exist.

So I studied geology.

Bollocks.

Then I began to wonder if these could be explained by the story I had heard
as a child so I reread it and started formulating a hypothesis.

So I guess that you'll come up with the "hypothesis" that the moon is made of
green cheese next.

So you think that the only other possible way of thinking about geology is
that the moon is made of cheese. Man, Richard. You are *worse* than those
religious bigots you hate so much.

You are not "thinking about geology". You are making up ridiculous
scenarios which contradict everything generations of researchers have
discovered about the geology of this planet, and which are contradicted
by basic physics.


If you want to think about geology, you need to learn about geology and
spend time in the field looking at rocks. You won't learn about geology
from the works of creationists. Such works are demonstrably collections
of frequently incoherent misrepresentations, distortions and outright
falsehoods.

I can recommend some excellent books on the subject if you have any
interest in learning about it, but I suspect that you have no interest
whatsoever in doing anything of the sort.

RF

So my hypothesis would lead me to look for the event(s) that started the
first flood event, which is the rain, in pre-cambrian rock. So, I would
expect it to look geologically "old".

And with the radioactive elements in those rocks magically altered so that
they look old.

I don't know what to make of radioisotopic dating.

Yet you claim to have "studied" geology. Statements such as this make
that claim seem rather ... weak.

Really, it should make it seem rather strong. At least I haven't bought
everything hook, line, and sinker. What happened to you? Didn't your teacher
let you ask any questions?

I'm not a meteorologist so I don't know the effects of around a hundred
feet of water in the upper atmosphere, but remember it should be
transparent at least, not clouds.

But it would have a very strong greenhouse effect which would give us
temperatures high enough to melt lead.

You don't know.

Yes we do. All we need to do is to look at Venus, where the atmospheric
conditions you require for your model exist. It's hot enough to melt lead.

Venus has a large amount of acid in it's atmosphere which produces a heavy
haze and thick overcast. Quit comparing the two.

George Evans

.