Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DamagedGoods · 07-04-2003, 06:12 AM

Just an observation about the "Diamonds Formed in Twenty-Four Hours By Heat and Hydraulic Pressure" section. The author seems to be saying that the added weight of the flood water on the crust would increase the pressure on carbon deposits and allow rapid production of diamonds. I never knew that the time required to produce diamonds was an argument for the age of the earth, but that's not my concern at the moment.

Supposedly, all the flood water was contained in the "water vapor canopy" that was (somehow) suspended in the atmosphere. If this were true, then the same weight would bear down on the crust whether the water was in a canopy way in the air or directly on the ground. That would also mean that the atmospheric pressure at sea level before the flood would be insanely high - easily tens or hundreds of times higher than it is now.

I'm not sure how the "water vapor canopy" was supposedly formed/maintained, what caused it to precipitate out in a mere 40 days, or what allowed Noah and everyone else to survive such a massive drop in atmospheric pressure during the rain, but I'm sure the answer is something along the lines of "goddidit."

Dr.GH · 07-04-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
I�m mildly -- only mildly: it�s hardly much of a surprise given the standard of the rest -- curious as to why any large number would be listed as �squared�. I wonder if the bozo read somewhere that the core temp is 25 x 10^2... and got it very wrapped round his ear�ole, as he�s done with everything else. (Though even that�s an odd way of doing it! But unless he did just pull the figure out of his arse, there ought to be a mangled factoid in there.) Might the core temp be plain 2500C (can�t be bothered to look it up )?

Oolon

What if this nimrod confused E=Mc^2 with Degrees C???

Naw. Well, maybe.

agnawstick · 07-05-2003, 08:35 PM

I know people have done studies of how much space an animal would take up in the ark, but has anybody done a study of the lumber required to build it, plus the man hours involved? How many trees must have been chopped down, how much time to process it into lumber, how many pounds the ark would be. Oh, not to mention the gathering of all the animals during this time, even those with short life spans. That one has always stumped me. You get a pair of guinea pigs before ya go, and they die off, or maybe they just kept mating guinea pigs in between building the ark.

Jayjay · 07-05-2003, 08:46 PM

I'm no creationist, but the impression I have is that man-hour and material problems are handwaved away by people, animals and wood being superior to what's available in current ecosystem (everything degrading thanks to the fall and all). Collecting animals is not a problem because "Goddidit"... presumably, Noah just opened the door and two of each kind all around the world walked in. Afterwards, God reversed this and made them walk back to wherever the animals came from, and carefully picked up the bones and tracks that the migrating populations might have left behind. Magic!

agnawstick · 07-05-2003, 08:57 PM

I did find a page where a fundy tries to estimate the weight of the wood on the ark. Following the design from the bible they estimate that it would be 14,150.66 long tons or 31,696,000 pounds. Working non stop 24.7 for 98 years, one would have to chop down, treat, cut the wood at a rate of 4.61 pounds an hour to even just have the big pile of wood ready in 98 years, using tools of the time of Noah, with basically 4 guys doing it, unless the women pitched in too. They also had to collect all the animals, all their food requirements, breed the animals that would die in that time, you name it.

Noah rocked!

Asha'man · 07-06-2003, 03:24 AM

I think it is easy to dismiss the problem of getting the wood for the ark. Noah, being the honest man that he was, just purchased it.

How could such a humble man afford so much wood? He probably got a loan, knowing that he would never have to pay it back.

Dark Jedi · 07-06-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
Well what happens when you square negative or zero degrees Celsius?

Celsus

The Big Bang.

Worldtraveller · 07-09-2003, 05:59 AM

This guy is really out there....There are so many blatant exxagerations and out and out lies in the first half of the page that it would take a looong time to correct it all. :banghead:

But maybe that's the intent, it is a very long page. I have a planetary geologist friend who would love to tear this apart....if he wasn't involved in REAL work for NASA.

I'm an engineer by trade, not an geologist/scientist, but I think I've forgotten more of my 8th grade science than this guy ever learned. And yet, he has taken it upon himself to edumicate all of us ignerrant infidels....:banghead:

I'm still trying to figure out what temperature squared really means.....

If I feel like an exercise in futility, I will sit down and write up a point by point dissection. But don't hold yer breath.

Cheers,
Lane

KC · 07-09-2003, 07:12 AM

Has any creationist argument for the Noachian flood ever addressed why we first find ferns and gymnosperms earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms? Every time I have asked this question, the subject gets quickly changed.

KC

Porky Pine · 07-09-2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Has any creationist argument for the Noachian flood ever addressed why we first find ferns and gymnosperms earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms? Every time I have asked this question, the subject gets quickly changed.

The excuse I've always heard was that the ferns and the angiosperms were in different "biospheres". Either that, or the angiosperms were smarter than the ferns and were able to run up the hills in order to escape the flood.

07-09-2003, 05:59 AM	#28
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	Ouch, my head hurts.... This guy is really out there....There are so many blatant exxagerations and out and out lies in the first half of the page that it would take a looong time to correct it all. :banghead: But maybe that's the intent, it is a very long page. I have a planetary geologist friend who would love to tear this apart....if he wasn't involved in REAL work for NASA. I'm an engineer by trade, not an geologist/scientist, but I think I've forgotten more of my 8th grade science than this guy ever learned. And yet, he has taken it upon himself to edumicate all of us ignerrant infidels....:banghead: I'm still trying to figure out what temperature squared really means..... If I feel like an exercise in futility, I will sit down and write up a point by point dissection. But don't hold yer breath. Cheers, Lane

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2003, 06:12 AM	#21
DamagedGoods Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Norfolk, VA, USA Posts: 219	Just an observation about the "Diamonds Formed in Twenty-Four Hours By Heat and Hydraulic Pressure" section. The author seems to be saying that the added weight of the flood water on the crust would increase the pressure on carbon deposits and allow rapid production of diamonds. I never knew that the time required to produce diamonds was an argument for the age of the earth, but that's not my concern at the moment. Supposedly, all the flood water was contained in the "water vapor canopy" that was (somehow) suspended in the atmosphere. If this were true, then the same weight would bear down on the crust whether the water was in a canopy way in the air or directly on the ground. That would also mean that the atmospheric pressure at sea level before the flood would be insanely high - easily tens or hundreds of times higher than it is now. I'm not sure how the "water vapor canopy" was supposedly formed/maintained, what caused it to precipitate out in a mere 40 days, or what allowed Noah and everyone else to survive such a massive drop in atmospheric pressure during the rain, but I'm sure the answer is something along the lines of "goddidit."

07-05-2003, 08:35 PM	#23
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	I know people have done studies of how much space an animal would take up in the ark, but has anybody done a study of the lumber required to build it, plus the man hours involved? How many trees must have been chopped down, how much time to process it into lumber, how many pounds the ark would be. Oh, not to mention the gathering of all the animals during this time, even those with short life spans. That one has always stumped me. You get a pair of guinea pigs before ya go, and they die off, or maybe they just kept mating guinea pigs in between building the ark.

07-05-2003, 08:46 PM	#24
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	I'm no creationist, but the impression I have is that man-hour and material problems are handwaved away by people, animals and wood being superior to what's available in current ecosystem (everything degrading thanks to the fall and all). Collecting animals is not a problem because "Goddidit"... presumably, Noah just opened the door and two of each kind all around the world walked in. Afterwards, God reversed this and made them walk back to wherever the animals came from, and carefully picked up the bones and tracks that the migrating populations might have left behind. Magic!

07-05-2003, 08:57 PM	#25
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	I did find a page where a fundy tries to estimate the weight of the wood on the ark. Following the design from the bible they estimate that it would be 14,150.66 long tons or 31,696,000 pounds. Working non stop 24.7 for 98 years, one would have to chop down, treat, cut the wood at a rate of 4.61 pounds an hour to even just have the big pile of wood ready in 98 years, using tools of the time of Noah, with basically 4 guys doing it, unless the women pitched in too. They also had to collect all the animals, all their food requirements, breed the animals that would die in that time, you name it. Noah rocked!

07-06-2003, 03:24 AM	#26
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	I think it is easy to dismiss the problem of getting the wood for the ark. Noah, being the honest man that he was, just purchased it. How could such a humble man afford so much wood? He probably got a loan, knowing that he would never have to pay it back.

07-09-2003, 07:12 AM	#29
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	Has any creationist argument for the Noachian flood ever addressed why we first find ferns and gymnosperms earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms? Every time I have asked this question, the subject gets quickly changed. KC

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.