Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

[Metsfanmax]

How about (f) how the hell did Noah and the ark survive dinosaur-killer sized asteroid impacts?

Distance & rains calmed the collateral damage. The Yucatan Penninsula is far enough away from Mesopotamia valley. Does this seem impossible to you?

Yes. An asteroid like the one responsible for the mass extinction at the KT boundary would have choked the entire atmosphere with a dust cloud for several years, making it basically impossible for plant life to survive. And, I thought this was a global flood. As a result, you'd have giant tsumani-size waves flying everywhere as the waters rose.

Also, if there was a gigantic spherical "canopy" of ice surrounding the Earth, with a whole gigantic layer of water on top, how did sunlight reach the surface? How did we see the stars?

[universalchiro]

How about (f) how the hell did Noah and the ark survive dinosaur-killer sized asteroid impacts?

Distance & rains calmed the collateral damage. The Yucatan Penninsula is far enough away from Mesopotamia valley. Does this seem impossible to you?

Yes. An asteroid like the one responsible for the mass extinction at the KT boundary would have choked the entire atmosphere with a dust cloud for several years, making it basically impossible for plant life to survive. And, I thought this was a global flood. As a result, you'd have giant tsumani-size waves flying everywhere as the waters rose.

Also, if there was a gigantic spherical "canopy" of ice surrounding the Earth, with a whole gigantic layer of water on top, how did sunlight reach the surface? How did we see the stars?

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asyeroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood. So the asteroid impacted land. Debris particulates for years, I agree, unless there was a global rain to bring down the particulates and put out the fires, which would result in a layer of Iridium and a layer ofash, which is observable. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

[AndyDufresne]

How does someone on Saturn see stars?

Someone doesn't.


--Andy

[notyou2]

And you were referring to player being a Christian? I think she would get pissed off at you for saying such a thing about her. From my reading of her words, she doesn't accept the Bible.

Player has stated many times that she is a Christian, but she is not a young earth creationist.

So, you have passed judgement on her. How christian of you.

[mrswdk]

I pray to Alakazam a Muslim.

[crispybits]

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asteroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood.

That's a strange statement to make when the bible you hold as literally true states that God created the seas on the third day (Genesis 1:9-10)

So the asteroid impacted land.

An asteroid big enough to cause continental plates to move fast enough to create the current configuration from a starting point of a super-continent within 40 days? Take one of the smaller plates, the Fiji microplate. It makes up less than half of one thousandth of a percent of the total plate area on the surface of the Earth. It's roughly 18,400 square kilometres. Tectonic plate thicknesses are thought to start from around 100km and work upwards, so the low end estimate for it's volume would be 1,840,000 km3. The density of the Earth's crust is approx 2.7g/cm3, or 2,700,000,000 tons per km3. This means the total weight of this tiny (relatively speaking) microplate is somewhere in the region of 5,000,000,000,000,000 tons. (5 million billion).

Lets say this plate only had to move 100km in the big reshuffle (a relatively small distance compared to the size of the planet). That means that in 40 days it had to move 2.5km per day, or roughly 100m per hour. Lets be generous and say we don't have to worry about slowing it down afterwards because friction and stuff will do that for us and you're still left needing about 42.5 billion billion billion joules of energy. That's roughly 10 million billion Hiroshima bombs worth of energy.

Debris particulates for years, I agree, unless there was a global rain to bring down the particulates and put out the fires, which would result in a layer of Iridium and a layer ofash, which is observable. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Given that the amount of energy required to move one of the smallest tectonic plates a mere 100km within the 40 day flood timespan being released on the surface of the planet is enough to turn our atmosphere into superheated plasma and vapourise everything on the surface rendering the Earth a smooth lump of molten rock and metal I'd say yes, this hypothesis sounds impossible to me.

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

I can't be bothered wasting another sheet of paper to do all the maths for this one, but given that to create a global flood that covered the surface of the earth in a layer of water just 100m thick (much thinner than is needed to actually submerge most of the higher land in the world) you'd need many millons of times the amount of water contained in Saturn's rings, either you're proposing rings that stretch outside the solar system or something else equally ludicrous. So yes, this hypothesis sounds impossblie to me.

Oh and I did all that calculation using physics and maths you get taught in grade school and the first year or so of high school, using pen and paper (no calculators). It's not difficult to prove ridiculous hypotheses like that wrong...

[universalchiro]

crispy wrote: Lets say this plate only had to move 100km in the big reshuffle (a relatively small distance compared to the size of the planet). That means that in 40 days it had to move 2.5km per day, or roughly 100m per hour.

Respectfully my math is different than yours. Using your numbers of 2.5km/day = 0.1km/hour X 0.621km/miles = 0.065mph. To put that in perspective humans walk 2.5mph.

Also an asteroid would not have to force the movements of the plates from origin to destination, merely break the static friction of 1,650+/- years of potential energy. Imagine if there were no tectonic plate movements for 1,650 years, the build up of kinetic energy would be tremendous. Its like asking how much force is required to push a 2 ton stone 1mile, well a lot, but if the stone was on a hill then less energy is required and if a spring has stored energy to push then even less energy required and if friction was reduced from fountains of the deep and magma then less energy required. Rock flows pretty well down magma and even glaciers push rock. So now that your mph was corrected and in error by a factor of 10^4, is my hypothesis of faster moving tectonic plates impossible? Before you answer, consider that one earthquake has been recorded to move the pole by 40 feet in seconds.

[crispybits]

Firstly, I never quoted an mph figure, I quoted a METRES per hour figure but I was explicit with that, and my figure of 100 METRES per hour does equate to 0.062mph. So your imaginary 10^4 error doesn't exist.

Secondly, I already said I was assuming frictionless surfaces for acceleration. That actually causes problems when it comes to deceleration but I let that slide (hur de hur - I'm here all week! Try the veal...) You want to introduce friction then that's fine but it makes your hypothesis even less believable.

Thrdly, if we had an earthquake 100 times the size of the one that moved the plates 40 feet, and they moved the faults 4000 feet, that still only moves you about 7.5 miles. You can see further than than from a 6th floor window in a flat landscape on a clear day. In terms of the size of the plates and the earth there is no more significant difference between 40 feet and 4000 feet as there is for a human of 1 hairs width compared to 100 hairs widths. Its barely visible at that scale.

So, unless your "the laws of physics were different back then" also covers basic physical forces being hundreds of thousands of billions times weaker than they are now (which raises some very interesting questions itself) the kind of forces and energy levels you are describing are just not possible (or at least, they almost certainly would have been noticed by all the other cultures with historical records of their own we can look at from the time you claim all this happened). Funny how the ancient chinese never mentioned magntiude 800,000 billion earthquakes (as opposed to the magnitude 8 one that brought mass devastation to an entire corner of the US in 1906 and is still remembered as one of the worst earthquakes in record). Funny how the indian subcontinent cultures never mentioned country sized chains of volcanoes spewing soot and ash by the billions of tons into the air. Funny how the aboriginals in Australia never mention meteor strikes big enough to boil the atmosphere from the planet. Should I continue

[universalchiro]

Tectonic plates stationary and building up kinetic energy for 1,650 years, and suddenly being released during the flood and traveling at o.o6mph is not impossible. So we will agree to disagree.

You gain not merit using cheap debating tricks with your picture, for knowing the histroy of evolutionist falsifying evidence to force their agenda, it is possible you changed the letters on church sign. For faith in God or reading the Bible is never contrary to facts. Evolution is a hypothesis that most believe is fact.

[crispybits]

Traelling at 0.06mph for a second or a few minutes sure. Moving at 0.06mph for 40 straight days.... the longest duration earthquake ever recorded is only about 10 minutes. There would have to be a quake lasting nearly 6000 times as long as the longest one we have ever recorded, working at an order of magnitude 100,000 billion times more powerful than the most powerful earthquake ever recorded. An earthquake which would generate enough energy to melt the entire crust through vibration and frictional forces and vapourise even the massive amounts of water necessary to flood the entire planet so no dry land is above the surface of the waters. If that's the lengths you're willing to stretch you credulity to make reality conform to your fairy tales then fine we can agree to disagree. But before the conversation ends because you lack the honesty to admit you've been caught proposing something that is outright impossible just try a thought experiment for me.

If I was to tell you that I believe that there was once a horse that could run from New York to Los Angeles in a fraction of a millionth of a second, would you for a second believe me? Suppose I tell you I believe there is a bird that could fly so high it could leave the solar system? The orders of magnitude of difference between what we observe in reality and what you're claiming is possible is MORE than either of those two claims.

[universalchiro]

I get it, you disagree, I am fine with that. For me, I have to rationally work out how vast underground water reservoirs burst violently open for 40 days during the flood (Genesis 7), water coming down from the canopy was only half of the source. So fast moving tectonic plates fits nicely as the forces to push the water out, & fast moving plates explains why river deltas do not have greater than 4,500 years worth of sediment, among a few other reasons. All this heat that would be generayed from my hypothesis, maybe remnants are still remaining in magma. After all the location of heat from fast moving plates would be miles deep.
The flood also explains how woolly Mammoths have undigested tropical food in digestive tract while standing in up right position in herds of 150 million in the arctic circle.

Slow moving plates over 200 million years , the river deltas would have more sediment.

And the reason I contend there were no oceans till after the flood, (a) seas are smaller volume than oceans, (b) the flood created the oceans.

For me, seeing the layers of the crust smooth w/o commingling is compelling and a salient point against billions of years.

But its okay we can disagree, I respect your views.

[crispybits]

I have to rationally work out how vast underground water reservoirs burst violently open for 40 days during the flood (Genesis 7), water coming down from the canopy was only half of the source....

OK but why do you have to work that out? Do you work out other claims that require credulousness of the level we're talking about to believe? Do you take the claim about a sparrow that can fly around Pluto and say "Well I have to work out how that could be possible, maybe the sparrow has some sort of biological feature that allows it to convert carbon dioxide back to oxygen in deep space, maybe the feathers of the sparrow protect it from the cold of deep space somehow, etc etc" Do you take the claim that a horse can run many thousand times the speed of sound and try and work out what is it about horses that might make this possible?

The rational way to judge claims like that isnt to sit down and try and bend the rules of reality so far that they don't resemble anything like reality any more. If you need to even think about bending the rules of reality that are well known and which have been confirmed time and time and time again in high school science classes across the world (force = mass x acceleration, energy = force x distance) then the claim is almost certainly a non-starter anyway. The way to judge a claim is to say "does this agree with everything we observe in reality, and if not does the claimant explain sufficiently why what we observe has been misinterpretted?"

That's why it's not worth taking your hypothesis seriously and why I won't show it any more respect than I already have by spending the small amount of time I have completely debunking it as a possible valid hypothesis. Until you can say something along the lines of "well we understand tectonics work like this but actually we didn't consider this factor and they actually work like this" and have that be consistent with our observations, and have the additional factor be consistent with our observations and recorded data then what you're doing is not in any way scientific or rational.

You can't just say "I believe X, therefore there must be some explanation that accounts for both X and observations of reality", to be rational you have to say "these are the observations of reality, does X fit?" If you have to start breaking reality without proper justification about why current perceptions of how things work are incorrect to make X fit then X doesn't fit, and X should not be believed. That's not to say that X is not true, that's a different thing, just that until it's demonstrated properly it's not rational to believe it.

[PLAYER57832]

you are mistaken about the flood waters being clear. They had high turbidity. "Fountains of the deep burst open" for 40 days. When you post, stop with all the ridiculing adjectives as though it helps your argument. Shesh.

Show me the exact Bible quote that refers to mud in the water.
For a start, "fountains of the deep" is NOT it. As any hydrologist will tell you, some of the purest water comes from far below ground. It is, in fact where most people TODAY get their water.

[PLAYER57832]

Laws of the universe are Laws.

No, not in the way you try to imply. See, from the outset, every law has a understood addendum that goes "in our universe..." .

Also, the laws to which you refer are human creations, human understandings based on observations of the world around. Anything human is potentially fallible.

The universe is finely tuned, alter one law & life could cease. So I think we miscommunicated. Don't get too hung up on rates of decay, for trauma accelerates the decay. I observe and test that rates of decay are not constant. This a huge contention I have with large amounts of time people believe.

The best dating we have is radioactive dating,

No, we have better methods now. Or, to be precise, the atoms used vary, better and more regular "clocks" are being discovered.

I will leave the details to one of the physicists here, though.

And you were referring to player being a Christian? I think she would get pissed off at you for saying such a thing about her. From my reading of her words, she doesn't accept the Bible.

You are quite wrong there, universalchiro.. and that you think that just shows that you have NOT, in fact, read most of what I wrote. You can disagree, but I absolutely do profess Christ as my savior and do my best to follow his dictates. I do not, however, consider what you put forward to be a true representation of anything he represents. Above all, Christ represents truth. You do not.

[universalchiro]

wow! Player you believe in Jesus? Totally shocked, you are so often rude and seemingly pissed off that I am shocked to read that. Well okay, I'll accept that. Maybe you should work on removing rude descriptive words from your arsenal of writing, so your beliefs match up with your words.

[PLAYER57832]

wow! Player you believe in Jesus? Totally shocked, you are so often rude and seemingly pissed off that I am shocked to read that. Well okay, I'll accept that. Maybe you should work on removing rude descriptive words from your arsenal of writing, so your beliefs match up with your words.

Yeah, pretending outrage at form is an old tactic for avoiding substance in debates.

You make great pretense of putting forward debate, but ignore most real opposition, putting most who clearly show you are wrong on your foe list. This is not the ACT of a Christian. If you do not wish to engage in real and honest debate, then leave. You can pretend whatever faith you wish, but it is just words. Your actions show what you really are. Oh, yeah, and Christ did not advocate violence, but his words were hardly passive.

And, you are NOT as well versed even in the Bible as you claim. Try reading the Bible again... honestly, this time, and without all your preconceived gobbledy-gook ideas. Your ideas don't even match the Bible you claim as your source. You add in whatever you please, but ignore verified, tested science. I already noted that while I absolutely do not agree with young earth creationism, see it as large based upon misunderstandings and sometimes outright lies by the followers of Dr Morris, I do not consider every adherent, every debater to be personally a liar or stupid or dishonest.
That title I DO apply to you. If you consider it a slur... well, go ahead and prove my words wrong. ANSWER some of the legitimate criticisms, rather than just pretending this is a debate over manners.


Science isn't done by just thinking about what you might wish to be. That's fiction. Science starts with ideas, but it only becomes real science when groups of scientists collect, record and analyze data of various types AND leave it open for review by the plethora of other scientists.

Your picture of scientists changing data, twisting information... that is exactly what those you consider "valid sources" have done. Sorry, but you have been duped. Or, you yourself lie.

[AndyDufresne]

wow! Player universalchiro you believe in Jesus? Totally shocked, you are so often rude and seemingly pissed off that I am shocked to read that. Well okay, I'll accept that. Maybe you should work on removing rude descriptive words from your arsenal of writing, so your beliefs match up with your words.

--Andy

[universalchiro]

player go spew your lack of knowledge & rude words somewhere else, you don't have a clue. All you have posted is "no that's wrong" yet you don't bring evidence nor science, which means you don't have a clue what I'm talking about but you just know you're right.

[Metsfanmax]

crispy answered this in way more detail than I would have, so I'll only add a couple things.

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asyeroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood.

I am really puzzled by this, because I too thought that Genesis said that God created the oceans right at the beginning.

So the asteroid impacted land. Debris particulates for years, I agree, unless there was a global rain to bring down the particulates and put out the fires, which would result in a layer of Iridium and a layer ofash, which is observable. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Impossible? No, I suppose not, except for the part below. Still, if your method of debate is to ask me whether the statement you just mentioned is not literally so crazy that I could not even envision it, you've got a long way to go to convince me.

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes. There is about a billion cubic kilometers of water in the world's oceans. If you were to translate than into a uniform shell of water sitting at a height of 100 km above the surface of the Earth, it would have a thickness of over 2 km. It's really not possible to see sunlight 2 km underwater. And the water would have to be distributed basically uniformly -- you have been referring to "global" rains, so it couldn't just have all been piled up on the equator; and besides, the gravitational force would quickly disperse it evenly on top of the canopy.

[PLAYER57832]

player go spew your lack of knowledge & rude words somewhere else, you don't have a clue. All you have posted is "no that's wrong" yet you don't bring evidence nor science, which means you don't have a clue what I'm talking about but you just know you're right.

Yeah, like we have said, you cannot answer me, so you just have to declare me wrong.

On what basis do you say I am just wrong? I can (and have) provided proof of everything I say. You have refused every legitimate challenge, including not bothering to reference the Bible you cite as your basis.

How is it that you feel you have so much more knowledge, when you cannot even back up what you are saying with any verifiable data or evidence, only rambling thoughts?

And, sorry, not going away. If you will bastardize science and religion, I WILL refute you.

[hotfire]

200 meters is the lowest limit of the photic zone in the ocean just for clarity

[notyou2]

wow! Player you believe in Jesus? Totally shocked, you are so often rude and seemingly pissed off that I am shocked to read that. Well okay, I'll accept that. Maybe you should work on removing rude descriptive words from your arsenal of writing, so your beliefs match up with your words.

You sir are apparently a pompous ass and a hypocrite.

[isaiah40]

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asyeroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood.

I am really puzzled by this, because I too thought that Genesis said that God created the oceans right at the beginning.

Well universalchiro is technically correct. Still, God did say he placed the land in one area and the waters he called "seas" in one area. Basically one large mass of water , and one large mass of land.

[universalchiro]

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asteroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood., but seas.

I am really puzzled by this, because I too thought that Genesis said that God created the oceans right at the beginning.

Genesis doesn't say oceans, it reads seas. And most of the ocean water we see today was stored in two locations before the flood. (1) The Canopy of water, (2) fountains of the deep. Genesis 7 records that it rained upon the earth and the fountains of deep violently burst open for 40 days.
A global flood occurred and as the waters receded over the next year, the sediment settled in layers and the water receded into the Glacial age (rational deductive reasoning required).

[universalchiro]

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes. There is about a billion cubic kilometers of water in the world's oceans. If you were to translate than into a uniform shell of water sitting at a height of 100 km above the surface of the Earth, it would have a thickness of over 2 km. It's really not possible to see sunlight 2 km underwater. And the water would have to be distributed basically uniformly -- you have been referring to "global" rains, so it couldn't just have all been piled up on the equator; and besides, the gravitational force would quickly disperse it evenly on top of the canopy.

I agree w/ what you wrote, but my hypothesis is not 100% of oceans hovering as the canopy. My hypothesis is that the ocean water was 1/3 stored as the canopy, 1/3 stored as fountains of the deep, 1/3 as surface waters called seas.
And hovering at an altitude of 100km would required a thicker band of canopy than if the canopy was at higher altitudes , with higher altitudes gravity is reduced by inverse square law and surface area increases. Having a predominate central band (not like thin disc), a frozen external arch and centripetal force would maintain geocentric orbit. The Hebrew word for firmament/expanse in Genesis 1 has visible archway in the sky. a band of a canopy is in harmony w/ scripture.
Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?