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

[_LittleNipper]

Red shift, background radiation, and the doppler effect.

Sorry nipper, while there is physical evidence supporting the big bang theory, there seems to be 0 supporting the YEC narrative.

An explosion radiates out in all directions... Not so with our universe.

[_DrW]

Red shift, background radiation, and the doppler effect.

Sorry nipper, while there is physical evidence supporting the big bang theory, there seems to be 0 supporting the YEC narrative.

An explosion radiates out in all directions... Not so with our universe.

Another bald assertion not supported by the data.

Tell me, Little Nipper, how does the universe "radiate"?

[_LittleNipper]

An explosion radiates out in all directions... Not so with our universe.

Another bald assertion not supported by the data.

Tell me, Little Nipper, how does the universe "radiate"?

The exploded matter would spread outward in all directions equally --- and not just as a plate.

Please see: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... blems.html

[_Res Ipsa]

The exploded matter would spread outward in all directions equally --- and not just as a plate.

Please see: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... blems.html

Oh good grief. The first is a website by a crank who thinks the face on mars is an artificial structure.
The second discusses the "flatness problem," which has to do with the shape of spacetime. It has nothing to do with how the matter spreads out. (Hint -- the big bang theory says it spreads out in all directions.)

Finally, even if there were a fatal problem with the BBT, that's not evidence for creation by your god.

[_Drifting]

Nipper was in over his head 35 pages ago....

[_Res Ipsa]

Just for yuks, here's a rebuttal to the "10 problems with the big bang" from a creationist website. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... uttal.html

[Guest]

Let's put things in perspective here. The earth's maximum diameter is 12,756.2 kilometers (7,926.3 miles) at the equator, and its minimum diameter at the poles is 12,713.6 kilometers (7,899.9 miles). Its average diameter is 12,742.0 kilometers (7,917.5 miles).

Thus its maximum diameter is only 0.11 % greater than, and its minimum diameter is only 0.22 % less than its average diameter. Its highest mountain peak is only about 8.8 kilometers (5.5 miles) above mean sea level, and its lowest ocean trench is only about 10.4 kilometers (6.4 miles) below mean sea level.

If the earth were reduced to the size of a standard cue ball (about 2.25 inches or 5.7 cm in diameter), with all its irregularities reduced proportionately, it would vary from perfect roundness by less 25 ten thousandths of an inch, or less than 64 micrometers. Its highest mountain peak would protrude only 16 ten thousandths of an inch or so (39 micrometers) above its surface, and its deepest "scratch" would only be about 18 ten thousandths of an inch (less than 47 micrometers) deep. In short, it would appear more nearly perfectly round and feel smoother to the touch than a typical, polished, slightly used cue ball!

Its ocean, reduced to the same scale, would form an almost microscopically thin film of dampness with an average thickness of only 7 ten thousandths of an inch (18 micrometers)! This would not even be deep enough to submerge a typical dust speck!

[_subgenius]

I've written visualization code for global terrain sets.

congratulations...but this does not mean you are any good at it...and obviously you writing visualization code is meaningless to the topic at hand.
I am sure if i need a mercatur projection or a trail map you are the guy to see....but....

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 thought we were talking about the shape of the earth...not its surface features....but perhaps you have actual evidence for what those features were 6,000 years ago?......3,000 years ago?.......
The geoid irregularities are significant...a geoid, in and of itself, is a significant deviation from just a sphere.
Nevertheless, the point remains the same...your assumptions about the shape of the earth and the behavior of water upon it have been poorly argued, poorly assumed, and have been fundamentally in error for this topic. Unfortunately good science disagrees with your conception that the earth is shaped like the globe dangling from your key-chain.

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

i rarely quote you, so your accusation here is exaggerated.

Please, offer your opinion on the following as either an accurate depiction of the earth or not.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -time.html

[_LittleNipper]

Nipper was in over his head 35 pages ago....

I have God on my side. You cannot top that 30 pages from now.

[_LittleNipper]

The exploded matter would spread outward in all directions equally --- and not just as a plate.

Please see: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... blems.html

Oh good grief. The first is a website by a crank who thinks the face on mars is an artificial structure.
The second discusses the "flatness problem," which has to do with the shape of spacetime. It has nothing to do with how the matter spreads out. (Hint -- the big bang theory says it spreads out in all directions.)

Finally, even if there were a fatal problem with the BBT, that's not evidence for creation by your god.

Well, even a crank sees issues with the theory of the Big Bang. In any case, the theory isn't any more scientific the Creationism or the Flood. It simply has to do with who believes what.