Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_SteelHead]

the earth is no more smooth than it is round
people often view the atmospheric curvature as bieng the "shape" of the planet...and yet science has shown us otherwise.



which is why naïve formulas about how the earth may have been or may not have been covered by water are simply inadequate.

even gravity is not as consistent as we would "assume"

Sub, you know as well as I do those images are gross exaggerations of the real topology. But keep posting them.

[_DrW]

So, present the facts that prove the Big Bang Theory. I cannot wait to see the physical evidence and scientific duplication of the process.

SteelHead made a good start as to evidence for the Big Bang.

However, rather than change the subject, why don't we stick with the Earth for now?

Creationists claim it is less than 10,000 years old. Many zero in on about 6,000. This is only off by a factor of 10^5 or so.

I claim that creationists who want to convince others that their claims of magic provide the best explanation for the relevant scientific evidence accomplish little else besides making fools of themselves.

If you are a creationist who believes that you can provide a better explanation for the available evidence as to the age of the Earth, then this is your chance.

You can do so on this thread or better yet, on the YEC and LDS Church thread on the Terrestrial Forum.

Please, no more deflections, obfuscations, or subject changes. Let's see what you've got.

If you have nothing other than the misinformation you read on creationist websites, then why not simply say that you believe in magic and let it go at that?

Better yet, why not ask yourself if it is a good idea to go through life with a worldview based on magic?

[_LittleNipper]

So, present the facts that prove the Big Bang Theory. I cannot wait to see the physical evidence and scientific duplication of the process.

SteelHead made a good start as to evidence for the Big Bang.

However, rather than change the subject, why don't we stick with the Earth for now?

Creationists claim it is less than 10,000 years old. Many zero in on about 6,000. This is only off by a factor of 10^5 or so.

I claim that creationists who want to convince others that their claims of magic provide the best explanation for the relevant scientific evidence accomplish little else besides making fools of themselves.

If you are a creationist who believes that you can provide a better explanation for the available evidence as to the age of the Earth, then this is your chance.

You can do so on this thread or better yet, on the YEC and LDS Church thread on the Terrestrial Forum.

Please, no more deflections, obfuscations, or subject changes. Let's see what you've got.

If you have nothing other than the misinformation you read on creationist websites, then why not simply say that you believe in magic and let it go at that?

Better yet, why not ask yourself if it is a good idea to go through life with a worldview based on magic?

Do you believe in God? Magic is a man designed illusion. Is life an illusion? Can man create life?

[_bcuzbcuz]

So, present the facts that prove the Big Bang Theory. I cannot wait to see the physical evidence and scientific duplication of the process.

The observable universe is currently 92 billion lights years across...and growing. Connecting the dots from the direction all matter is headed with the direction it came from and it all leads back to one little spot. Sort of like crime scene analysis of trajectories. How it got from that one spot to being 92 billion light years across is anybody's guess. The best guess so far is the Big Bang THEORY, but if you've got a better idea, go for it.

[_bcuzbcuz]

the earth is no more smooth than it is round
people often view the atmospheric curvature as bieng the "shape" of the planet...and yet science has shown us otherwise.



which is why naïve formulas about how the earth may have been or may not have been covered by water are simply inadequate.

even gravity is not as consistent as we would "assume"

Papier maché worlds. How colourful and creative. Are they piñatas?

[_Themis]

the earth is no more smooth than it is round
people often view the atmospheric curvature as bieng the "shape" of the planet...and yet science has shown us otherwise.



which is why naïve formulas about how the earth may have been or may not have been covered by water are simply inadequate.

even gravity is not as consistent as we would "assume"

Sub, you know as well as I do those images are gross exaggerations of the real topology. But keep posting them.

They are not even images of earth's shape.

[_subgenius]

my posted images are much closer to actual
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -time.html
than your absurd assumed "spherical" planet.
"Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior. "

so, we clearly see that your previously offered juvenile calculations to prove how water covers the earth's surface are incorrect and insufficient.

and another just to illustrate the inept nature of your assumptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... JfBSc6e7QQ

[_Res Ipsa]

Here is some more information on the geoid simulations. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/04/01/the-geoid-why-a-map-of-earths-gravity-yields-a-potato-shaped-planet/

First, and most important, the geoid doesn't represent the shape of the earth.

Second, the simulation amplifies the geoid by 7,000 times.

Edited to fix link.

[_SteelHead]

I've written visualization code for global terrain sets. You have to massively scale the heights for a visualization at that scale else the topological features disappear. It is akin to holding an orange at arms length and looking for features. The geoid irregularities and the mountains are so insignificant at that scale that they are not discernable.

I already told sub this a couple of months ago, but he likes to perpetuate bad information.

[_Themis]

I've written visualization code for global terrain sets. You have to massively scale the heights for a visualization at that scale else the topological features disappear. It is akin to holding an orange at arms length and looking for features. The geoid irregularities and the mountains are so insignificant at that scale that they are not discernable.

I already told sub this a couple of months ago, but he likes to perpetuate bad information.

Subby just doesn't want to admit to being wrong.