LittleNipper wrote:Drifting wrote:Nipper was in over his head 35 pages ago....
I have God on my side. You cannot top that 30 pages from now.
Where?
LittleNipper wrote:Drifting wrote:Nipper was in over his head 35 pages ago....
I have God on my side. You cannot top that 30 pages from now.
SteelHead wrote:[
Where?
subgenius wrote: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 wrote:
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.
Gunnar wrote: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 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!
DrW wrote:Great analogy. Thank you for some sanity. (We didn't have a pool table at home, but lots of eggs, so the version I taught my kids was the the Earth's surface was proportionally smoother than that of an egg.)
Most people I know have these kinds of facts in their "common knowledge" data base. Apparently not so with our faithful friends. One shutters to think what other common knowledge facts they have no clue about.
Little Nipper and subgenius seem locked in a contest to see who can bring up the silliest pseudoscience objections to reality from the most ridiculous creationist websites.
Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote: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
The answer, if you had bothered to actually read the page you linked to, is no. The geoid is not the actual shape of the earth, and the video exaggerates the effect of differences in gravity 7000 times.
DrW wrote:Gunnar wrote: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 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!
Great analogy. Thank you for some sanity. (We didn't have a pool table at home, but lots of eggs, so the version I taught my kids was the the Earth's surface was proportionally smoother than that of an egg.)
Most people I know have these kinds of facts in their "common knowledge" data base. Apparently not so with our faithful friends. One shutters to think what other common knowledge facts they have no clue about.
Little Nipper and subgenius seem locked in a contest to see who can bring up the silliest pseudoscience objections to reality from the most ridiculous creationist websites.
subgenius wrote:
The bottom line is that it is possible, by modern and commonly accepted scientific principles, for the earth to have been covered by water at some point in time prior to today.
DrW wrote:As for liquid water, there is no evidence that the Earth has ever been completely covered with liquid water, especially as recently as 4,800 years ago.