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

[Guest]

More like an egg or an apple? Wrong. +- 100m does not an egg make.
You will also find if you go back in the thread I ran the calculations using the max radius, and the min for that matter.. which would encompass the variance. Try again.

[_LittleNipper]

Interestingly but not surprising, you entirely failed to explain how the following could exist and not be the result of the Flood. They certainly do not fit the uniformitarian mold. And I just wonder ---how much of this sort of stuff is suppressed because evolutionists have no answers but now control universities, the science museums, government research facilities, etc.:
http://www.Bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

I'm not going to spend hours chasing down every picture you can pull off of some creationist website. The guy who wrote the article you linked to was a computer science professor. His many, many errors in things geological have been documented. Use the google.

How does anything embedded in 110 million year old limestone help you at all? It's still 110 million years old. And here's a hint: is there any property of limestone that would allow a piece of wood to be transported inside a limestone formation? Look up limestone and educate yourself on its properties.

The St. Helens dating results from some serious flaws in the testing. You can google that one, too.

Your last sentence explains exactly why I don't want you anywhere near my children's classroom. To attribute facts you don't like to some kind of conspiracy is ignorant and delusional. Actually, someone is lying to you. But it's not the scientists -- it's the creationists who publish these websites and books. They lie about the science. They lie about the facts. They lie about the scientists. Why not ask yourself: why are these good christians lying to you?

I don't care if you want to remain ignorant in your little YEC bubble. If you choose to foist that ignorance on your children, I feel sorry for them. But you're not going to use the power of government to spread ignorance and delusion to my children.

The logic you do not seem to be grasping is that errors are very possible. And the simple fact is that since the wood is embedded in the limestone, the limestone can only be as old as the the piece of wood it surrounds and not the other way around. And this would call into question ALL "ancient" limestone dating, because of the obvious. The only reason anyone can actually question the date of the limestone is because of the wood stuck in it. But how can anyone now accept any dated limestone. If they are in error with one, why would they not be in error with all other specimens? And I understand you completely. Creationists must account to a higher authority and so they always lie and get drunk, smoke, take drugs, sleep around, and make up statistics, and get everything wrong. While Uniformitarians and evolutionists are sober, sound men who never indulge and would never lie to save themselves or their careers. You must be totally blind, because I don't believe you to be stupid. But if you wish to keep your children in the dark and hide under the bed, that is for you to decide, but they will not be the better for all your controlling and freedom is not free. If creationism is not good enough for your children, what makes you imagine that atheist evolution is good enough for mine. The fact is, Christians have allowed the evolutionist to spout since the 1930's, but the intent of the evolutionist seems to be to hog the stage and expell all other opinions not related to their own.

[_Res Ipsa]

Oh subgenius, there you go again. I know you can do the math on this one. If you shrink the earth down to the size of an apple, does it look like an apple or like a sphere? If you shrink it down to the size of an egg, does it look like a sphere or an egg? Just by looking, could you tell whether the earth was a perfect sphere, or not?

I know you know the answer. So why do you keep posting misleading pictures and pretending they mean something?

Since we are talking about raising the sea level, why is it some kind of error to be talking about the highest point above sea level? Please explain.

[_Res Ipsa]

The logic you do not seem to be grasping is that errors are very possible. And the simple fact is that since the wood is embedded in the limestone, the limestone can only be as old as the the piece of wood it surrounds and not the other way around. And this would call into question ALL "ancient" limestone dating, because of the obvious. The only reason anyone can actually question the date of the limestone is because of the wood stuck in it. But how can anyone now accept any dated limestone. If they are in error with one, why would they not be in error with all other specimens? And I understand you completely. Creationists must account to a higher authority and so they always lie and get drunk, smoke, take drugs, sleep around, and make up statistics, and get everything wrong. While Uniformitarians and evolutionists are sober, sound men who never indulge and would never lie to save themselves or their careers. You must be totally blind, because I don't believe you to be stupid. But if you wish to keep your children in the dark and hide under the bed, that is for you to decide, but they will not be the better for all your controlling and freedom is not free. If creationism is not good enough for your children, what makes you imagine that atheist evolution is good enough for mine. The fact is, Christians have allowed the evolutionist to spout since the 1930's, but the intent of the evolutionist seems to be to hog the stage and expell all other opinions not related to their own.

You didn't read up on limestone, did you? If you had, you would understand how material like wood can end up inside a limestone formation. Go on, use the google. It'll only take you a few minutes.

Creationists have been lying to you about how science works and the results of applying the scientific method. You should be angry with them -- not atheists.

Creationism is religion dishonestly pretending to be science. That's why it doesn't belong in public school. Evolution is a scientific theory based on investigation and evalution of facts. It is not religion. The two are not equivalent.

ETA: With respect to keeping my children in the dark and hiding under the bed: After doing lots and lots of thinking and reading on the subject, I've concluded for myself that religious indoctrination of children is inappropriate. I raise my children to think for themselves, and not to blindly accept my opinions as their own. When they (naturally) have questions about religion, I encourage them to investigate. My oldest son was a runner in high school, and lots of the cross country runners were LDS. One of them gave him a Book of Mormon and asked him to read it. He asked me about it and I encouraged him to read it. I told him I'd be happy to answer any questions he had, but he had only a few background questions. He figured it out on his own.

I now have a son in high school who believes in god and prays every night. He knows what I believe (because he asks), but I've never discouraged him from believing in god or praying. If he wanted to learn about religion, I'd point to sources that would help him learn. If he chooses to continue believing, that's fine with me.

The existence of god raises a number of complex factual and philosophical questions that, I believe, young children are not equipped to understand. I don't try to teach calculus to my 4th grader. When he's ready, he'll ask questions. If I've raised him to think for himself, then I'll be satisfied with whatever he decides about gods.

[Guest]

I know you know the answer. So why do you keep posting misleading pictures and pretending they mean something?

Because that's the best he's got...

[_LittleNipper]

The logic you do not seem to be grasping is that errors are very possible. And the simple fact is that since the wood is embedded in the limestone, the limestone can only be as old as the the piece of wood it surrounds and not the other way around. And this would call into question ALL "ancient" limestone dating, because of the obvious. The only reason anyone can actually question the date of the limestone is because of the wood stuck in it. But how can anyone now accept any dated limestone. If they are in error with one, why would they not be in error with all other specimens? And I understand you completely. Creationists must account to a higher authority and so they always lie and get drunk, smoke, take drugs, sleep around, and make up statistics, and get everything wrong. While Uniformitarians and evolutionists are sober, sound men who never indulge and would never lie to save themselves or their careers. You must be totally blind, because I don't believe you to be stupid. But if you wish to keep your children in the dark and hide under the bed, that is for you to decide, but they will not be the better for all your controlling and freedom is not free. If creationism is not good enough for your children, what makes you imagine that atheist evolution is good enough for mine. The fact is, Christians have allowed the evolutionist to spout since the 1930's, but the intent of the evolutionist seems to be to hog the stage and expell all other opinions not related to their own.

You didn't read up on limestone, did you? If you had, you would understand how material like wood can end up inside a limestone formation. Go on, use the google. It'll only take you a few minutes.

Creationists have been lying to you about how science works and the results of applying the scientific method. You should be angry with them -- not atheists.

Creationism is religion dishonestly pretending to be science. That's why it doesn't belong in public school. Evolution is a scientific theory based on investigation and evalution of facts. It is not religion. The two are not equivalent.

ETA: With respect to keeping my children in the dark and hiding under the bed: After doing lots and lots of thinking and reading on the subject, I've concluded for myself that religious indoctrination of children is inappropriate. I raise my children to think for themselves, and not to blindly accept my opinions as their own. When they (naturally) have questions about religion, I encourage them to investigate. My oldest son was a runner in high school, and lots of the cross country runners were LDS. One of them gave him a Book of Mormon and asked him to read it. He asked me about it and I encouraged him to read it. I told him I'd be happy to answer any questions he had, but he had only a few background questions. He figured it out on his own.

I now have a son in high school who believes in god and prays every night. He knows what I believe (because he asks), but I've never discouraged him from believing in god or praying. If he wanted to learn about religion, I'd point to sources that would help him learn. If he chooses to continue believing, that's fine with me.

The existence of god raises a number of complex factual and philosophical questions that, I believe, young children are not equipped to understand. I don't try to teach calculus to my 4th grader. When he's ready, he'll ask questions. If I've raised him to think for himself, then I'll be satisfied with whatever he decides about gods.

I believe children are a whole lot more perceptive that you are willing to give them credit for. I am not a Mormon. I also read the Book of Mormon and found it filled with contradictions to my Bible. For one, people don't turn into angels when they die. God is eternal love. Certainly children do understand that.

[_Drifting]

NEWS JUST IN!

Whilst reading and pondering the Book of Moses in the Pearl Of Great Price I came upon these verses in Chapter 8:

25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.

26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.

This makes it clear that it was Noah rather than God who was responsible for the death of everyone. God only caused the flood that drowned everyone/everything because Noah had been complaining to Him...

[_subgenius]

Oh subgenius, there you go again. I know you can do the math on this one. If you shrink the earth down to the size of an apple, does it look like an apple or like a sphere? If you shrink it down to the size of an egg, does it look like a sphere or an egg? Just by looking, could you tell whether the earth was a perfect sphere, or not?

it would likely look more like an egg than a sphere...or perhaps more like a misshapen sphere.
You seemingly confuse the atmospheric distortion as seen from space for the actual shape of the planet.
How come the scientific community has this simple concept grasped but your posts do not?

1.Orthometric heights
2.Normal heights
3.Geopotential heights
all 3 irrelevant when referencing an ellipsoid

I know you know the answer. So why do you keep posting misleading pictures and pretending they mean something?

because your model is flawed....and though you continue to avoid that fact, it still remains.

Since we are talking about raising the sea level, why is it some kind of error to be talking about the highest point above sea level? Please explain.

Because when you distort the earth's shape by averaging you can not maintain the same assume height above a sea level value that no longer exists in your model.
why can you assume the earth is a sphere through averaging its sea level radius but allow the land level radius to remain "un-averaged". You are distorting the shape of the earth to make your calculations easier yet you ignore the behavior of the materials involved. You have several inconsistent assumptions in your model that collectively render your conclusions worthless...even though you execute the subtraction, addition, and subtraction as good as any grade school kid with a calculator - but that does not validate your assumptions or conclusions.
For the claims you are making a more accurate and valid model must be presented, otherwise you are just speculating and fabricating.

For example, you can not justify your assumption that given any appropriate height above sea level for a land feature (like a mountain) requires a new sea level to be at a height over that point for the entire planet surface. We see that water can have multiple lengths of its "radius" just be the moon's gravitational influence - as is observed by varying tide heights across the globe. So, it is not unreasonable for water to be pulled higher in some areas and lower in others with regards to a center point of your sphere....whereas water would be as the skin of your "orange"...with peaks and valleys....a feature your model does not account for.
For example, when assuming the average radius of the earth to calculate the surface area of the earth, that answer yields a 1% deviation from what is currently considered as the accurate surface area of the earth....and this is simply a measurement of coverage with no regard for land surface "draping".

So, while i appreciate your oversimplifying the issue...i believe that is all you have actually done...oversimplify the issue into absurdity.

[_Res Ipsa]

Try again. If you reduce the earth down to the size of an egg, how much longer will the equatorial diameter be than the polar? (Hint: this has nothing to do with the shape of the atmosphere. It has to do with your refusal to acknowledge the actual scale of the departures from spherical shape.)

You keep doing the same thing over and over: claiming that these "distortions" are material to the calculation being performed. We already adjusted for the water being pulled by gravity in different ways by testing the magnitude of the effect of adjusting to the geoid. Not only is it immaterial to the calculation, it increases the amount of water needed to cover the highest point above sea level.

Your point about the surface area is a red herring. I'm using Steelead's calculation for the amount of additional water needed, which takes into account the displacement of the water by land currently above sea level.

All models are simplifications. No model is exactly correct. The question is: is the model useful for answer the question being posed. None of the objections you have raised to the model can make up for the missing water. All you are doing is jumping up and down and yelling "simplification!" and pretending that matters.

[_ludwigm]

I know you know the answer. So why do you keep posting misleading pictures and pretending they mean something?

Because that's the best he's got...

Posting pictures...

... even misleading ones...

... even safe for work ones

... or breasts (at least NIPPLES for littleNIPPER) ...

- would be a fairy-land here on Earth. Shades???