ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

Suppose that we want to get all that ringwoodite, with the water it contains, from its present depth of about 600 km to the Earth's surface to flood the Earth, and we need to know how much energy is required. The average gravitational acceleration in the Earth's outer 600 km is 9.9 m/s², so E = 4.22×10^23×6×10^5×9.9 = 2.5×10^30 joules. This is about the total energy output of the Sun in 1.8 hours, and about as much energy as the Earth receives from the Sun in 450,000 years. Alternatively, it is the energy of a magnitude 17 earthquake. You will, I think, see the difficulty in the hypothesis that the water for the Flood came from the supposed ocean in the Earth's mantle.

Unless of course they were only as deep as say the ogallalla aquifer- you know that freshwater ocean that waters the American farm belt for over 1 1/2 centuries now?

I am just quoting articles found in science mags that were quoting all them physicists and scientists. NOne of them are YEC BTW. Your side should get together and make a decision.

 

[nolidad]

You think that birds went extinct?

I'll give you one guess. Odds are fifty/fifty you will guess wrong . Maybe just to be snarky.

 

[nolidad]

Nobody is arguing against the idea that there is a vast amount of water tied up in Ringwoodite.

Then what is getting all of you in a snit? The fact that I simply pasted the articles from science mags? Is it that I posted it? I do not know what has gotten all you guys into a frenzy about this.

 

[Speedwell]

Then what is getting all of you in a snit? The fact that I simply pasted the articles from science mags? Is it that I posted it? I do not know what has gotten all you guys into a frenzy about this.

That you managed to give the impression, wittingly or not, that you thought that the water in Ringwoodite would have been available as liquid water to form the "fountains of the deep" and that these science articles supported that belief.

 

[nolidad]

No, the deal is that you lie, misrepresent and are ignorant about science,

Name one lie- one misrepresentation.

I may not have the level of knowledge you do- but I bewt dollars to donuts you are just ticked off because I can boil down those billions of pages of "evolution" to one simple statement--goo to you by way of the zoo!

I have noticed that your side loves to make many accusations and hurl ad-hominems but not back them up? Why is that??

 

[nolidad]

That all happened a long time ago, too. You ought to read about it.

Talkorigins makes the KKK look completely unbiased!

 

[Speedwell]

Talkorigins makes the KKK look completely unbiased!

Now that's an ad hominem.

 

[nolidad]

That you managed to give the impression, wittingly or not, that you thought that the water in Ringwoodite would have been available as liquid water to form the "fountains of the deep" and that these science articles supported that belief.

So are you saying that this "water" in ringwoodite never could have been liquid water before and could never become liquid water again ? Cite!

And instead of making left field assumptions about what I may or may not be thinking and looking foolish in the process- why don't you just ask me instead. I have no axe to grind in this.

And no I never thought these deep "resevoirs" of water (as your scientists call it in the mags I cited) were part and parcel fo the flood waters- they are too deep.

 

[nolidad]

Now that's an ad hominem.

Did talk origins become a human being instead of an organization???

IOt is a direct attack against tehm. Their animosity towards anything creation is legendary unless they stopped writing hate filled rebuttals in the past 3-4 years.

But look at what an ad-hominem is. You cannot hurl one against an organization.

 

[Speedwell]

So are you saying that this "water" in ringwoodite never could have been liquid water before and could never become liquid water again ? Cite!

And instead of making left field assumptions about what I may or may not be thinking and looking foolish in the process- why don't you just ask me instead. I have no axe to grind in this.

And no I never thought these deep "resevoirs" of water (as your scientists call it in the mags I cited) were part and parcel fo the flood waters- they are too deep.

Do you subscribe to Woodmorappe's hydroplate hypothesis?

 

[Speedwell]

IOt is a direct attack against tehm. Their animosity towards anything creation is legendary unless they stopped writing hate filled rebuttals in the past 3-4 years.

I would like a specific citation of anything they have written which you think is "hate filled,"

 

[Ophiolite]

What is the big deasl is that even adapting the mindset of the evolutionist you still found a way to compalin.

Trust me, when it comes to the content of your posts it is all to easy to "find a way to complain".

 

[VirOptimus]

Name one lie- one misrepresentation.

I may not have the level of knowledge you do- but I bewt dollars to donuts you are just ticked off because I can boil down those billions of pages of "evolution" to one simple statement--goo to you by way of the zoo!

I have noticed that your side loves to make many accusations and hurl ad-hominems but not back them up? Why is that??

There is no point. You only keep posting dishonest crap no matter how much you are corrected.

Its very entertaining though.

 

[Astrophile]

Maybe I have not read you rlinks. Is the mention of a creationist supposed to make me go all squishy inside and say- Oh well one creationist agrees with evolutionists so it must be true?

No. It was to show that at least one creationist can be honest and can admit that a piece of supposed evidence for young earth creationism was invalid.

 

[pitabread]

The fact that you cannot accept God working on the earth in miraculous ways is a sad thing.

Okay.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well you have established that you think anyone who rejects evolution is just a stage or two above idiots so this is not surprising.




Powerful powerful evidence laced rebuttals indeed!!!!!!!
Maybe you should take your whatever to the writers of these articles and teh scientists they interviewed! Not one of them is a YEC publication and all believe in the dogmas of evolution so that is yorui sides problem. I was just quoting them!

You claimed that the articles showed evidence of free flowing liquid oceans, I read each one (a courtesy you seem unwilling to reciprocate) and none of them mentioned such a thing, just the Ringwoodite Astro attempted to point out was there.

The do you accept what the articles say or not? You posted them, the problem is you either don’t understand them or are being dishonest.

All the articles suggest (and this is a quote from one of them) “There are no oceans of liquid water deep in the Earth's mantle; the 'water' is in the form of hydrated minerals, particularly the mineral ringwoodite. If this material could be brought to the Earth's surface it would erupt as lava, not as an outflow of water."

This is patently obvious to anyone reading the thread, I’m only pursuing the issue because I enjoy seeing creationists digging their own holes deeper and deeper in public.

 

[Jimmy D]

Maybe I have not read you rlinks. Is the mention of a creationist supposed to make me go all squishy inside and say- Oh well one creationist agrees with evolutionists so it must be true?

Have you got no intellectual curiosity whatsoever? Don’t you care if you may be making erroneous statements for the world to see?

 

[Jimmy D]

Name one lie- one misrepresentation.

I may not have the level of knowledge you do- but I bewt dollars to donuts you are just ticked off because I can boil down those billions of pages of "evolution" to one simple statement--goo to you by way of the zoo!

Not bad, but creationism can be boiled down to one word... Goddidit.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll give you one guess. Odds are fifty/fifty you will guess wrong . Maybe just to be snarky.

I don’t know, you said it, what did you mean?

 

[Ophiolite]

Have you got no intellectual curiosity whatsoever? Don’t you care if you may be making erroneous statements for the world to see?

You ask an important question. It started me thinking (not always a good idea!) and this speculative possibility is the result.

Most (all?) humans have a strong need to seek a form of mental/emotional security. For those on the rational/sceptical end of the spectrum this security is provided by a process that reveals through evidence and argument reasonable explanations for what is observed. Disregard for that process is unsettling.
For those who gain their security through faith a deviation from their understanding of scripture creates the same unsettled feeling. Observations and beliefs that are concordant with their faith do not require evidence. Observations and beliefs that are contradicted by evidence are of secondary importance, since they are independent of faith/scripture and the latter always take precedence.

You and I think making erroneous statements is highly undesirable; knowingly making erroneous statements is wholly unacceptable- dishonest, dishonourable, despicable. But the alternate view is that those erroneous statements don't really matter since their motivation and underlying thesis is based upon faith/scripture. "So why would people get so upset over them, or so insistent the errors be acknowledged."