Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[dlamberth]

And the scientifically illiterate individuals who don't "swallow this nonsense" on the grounds that there was no science involved ... well ... they get put on IGNORE, don't they?

So whether we "swallow it" or not, we get ostracized, don't we?

That's academia for you.

I don't think I get ostracized for being scientifically illiterate.

I think I get ostracized for daring to claim some events in the Bible had nothing to do with science.

Calling someone "scientifically illiterate" is just a smokescreen for venting some strong emotions at people who don't think like a Rhodes scholar.

In my opinion.

What I look for are critical thinking skills. Some just swallow the nonsense because for some reason or another it sounds good to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I look for are critical thinking skills.

So do I.

I call them "challenge threads."

Those threads are good at exposing the damage that academia does to a person's mindset.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The trouble with these back of the envelope calculations is the energy released by a hydrogen bomb is not a standard given bombs have been exploded in the 1- 50 Mt range.
I used 1800 trillion x 25 Mt which is roughly equivalent to the energy radiated by the Sun of measured power 3.3 x 10²⁶ W in 6 days.

I used the value in ergs (I don't work with weirdo units like Mt of TNT. Who has a million tons of TNT, not I. Nor do I work with puny explosions like "H-bombs") quoted in post #813 from the foot notes of that website. (2.2e38 ergs/ 3.8e33 ergs/s [solar luminosity]) = ~60000 sec or 16 hours.

This is where the fun and games begin because as shown in Gutsick Gibbon's video, Brown employs some truly bizarre explanations in removing this heat such as invoking z-pinches blissfully unaware the Earth needs to be in a plasma state for this to occur.

We are approaching Grand Walt Unification...

I'm sure there are grounds for a PhD thesis here as to why YECists have a fascination with z-pinches given Chuck Missler was another advocate of this idea.

It sounds exotic, and yet can be found in laboratory. That would be my guess.

In the meantime scientifically illiterate individuals with an anti intellectual bias can swallow this nonsense as being convincing examples for the support of ID and YEC.

That's how cons usually work. Would you like some castor oil for those red spots...

 

[Hans Blaster]

What I look for are critical thinking skills. Some just swallow the nonsense because for some reason or another it sounds good to them.

For you[r] invisible sparring partner: Yes that's exactly what happens. R.E.M. even had a song about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So do I.

I call them "challenge threads."

Those threads are good at exposing the damage that academia does to a person's mindset.

In thinking critically about the nature of what passes for critical thinking these days, I have to wonder from where people----any people whether Christian or non-Christian, really-----gain their working definition for critical thinking.

If not from "academia," then where? The answer is: I think many simply make up their own guess-worked criteria for "critical thinking" and pass them off as acumen and insight.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think I get ostracized for being scientifically illiterate.

I think I get ostracized for daring to claim some events in the Bible had nothing to do with science.

Calling someone "scientifically illiterate" is just a smokescreen for venting some strong emotions at people who don't think like a Rhodes scholar.

In my opinion.

The thing is, that you need science in order to justify your opinion that the events in the Bible had nothing to do with science. Science is your basis for comparison there.
Therefore, ignorance of science is not an option for you, if you want to be heard .. and not ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing is, that you need science in order to justify your opinion that the events in the Bible had nothing to do with science. Science is your basis for comparison there.
Therefore, ignorance of science is not an option for you, if you want to be heard .. and not ignored.

I can't help but hear.

Every time someone brings up someone who uses science to try and justify the creation events, or to justify the Flood, they get pwned by academia back to kindergarten.

And that's what got me to thinking -- years and years ago -- that just possibly there was no science involved during the creation week.

So I studied the events of Genesis 1 & 2 and, lo and behold, I discovered that there isn't a lick of science involved.

Nature had NOTHING to do with it.

Because if she did, then the order of the creation events in Genesis 1 would be in accordance with the order that these things are taught in academic circles.

In short, I'm not the one who proves Genesis 1 & 2 are a series of miracles.

You guys are.

I love it when you guys rail against the likes of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind, and ICR, and the Discovery Institute, and the Ark Encounter, and other things.

In fact, this is one of my favorite videos -- made by atheists sarcastically critiquing the Ark Encounter:

 

[SelfSim]

I can't help but hear.

Every time someone brings up someone who uses science to try and justify the creation events, or to justify the Flood, they get pwned by academia back to kindergarten.

And that's what got me to thinking -- years and years ago -- that just possibly there was no science involved during the creation week.

So I studied the events of Genesis 1 & 2 and, lo and behold, I discovered that there isn't a lick of science involved.

Nature had NOTHING to do with it.

Because if she did, then the order of the creation events in Genesis 1 would be in accordance with the order that these things are taught in academic circles.

In short, I'm not the one who proves Genesis 1 & 2 are a series of miracles.

You guys are.

.. and yet you continue to have 'Science can take a hike' at the footer of your Avatar and then you conflate miraculous acts with objective physical processes and biblical desciptions of miracles as objective history, whilst invoking 'proofs'? Gross hypocrisy, I call that!

If you started by being honest and consistent, you might stand a slim chance of avoiding the ostracization you bemoan.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. and yet you continue to have 'Science can take a hike' at the footer of your Avatar ...

Why wouldn't I?

Science had NOTHING to do with the events of the creation week.

For example, science says matter can neither be created nor destroyed; but matter was created ex nihilo, when God created the earth.

So science isn't even in the picture.

In fact, the creation week was a series of one miracle after another, over a six-day period, that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level.

No ... science ... involved.

... and then you conflate miraculous acts with objective physical processes ...

Please show me ONE objective physical process that occurred in Genesis 1 or 2 that contributed to the creation of the universe.

Just ONE.

How can I conflate miraculous acts with processes that never occurred?

... and biblical descriptions of miracles as objective history, whilst invoking 'proofs'?

Gross hypocrisy, I call that!

Either that, or you don't understand what I'm saying.

And I suspect it's the latter.

If you started by being honest and consistent, you might stand a slim chance of avoiding the ostracization you bemoan.

I have to admit:

I've never been ostracized by someone who understood what I was saying.

I've been told they don't subscribe to what I believe, but those that understand what I'm saying usually give me credit for explaining things -- (however wrong they think I am) -- that science cannot.

 

[awstar]

More like 16 hours, but that hardly matters, as I doubt Brown's model is "precise" to more than an order of magnitude anyway.

Yep, a great eruption for several days.

Now lets think about what that means. If it releases the same energy as the Sun for 2/3 of a day (or even 2/3rds of 10 days), to radiate away that much heat via black body radiation from the surface of the Earth would take a lot of glowing. If we make the surface of Earth the same as the Sun, then the ratio of the rates is just the ratio of the areas. The Sun is about 100x the radius of the Earth, so the surface of the Sun is about 10000x larger and can radiate away all that thermal enegy in 2/3rds of 10000 days or about 20 years. And that requires the surface of the Earth to be 5800 K for two decades (hardly compatible with life, or the Noah story).

If we lower the temperature by 10x to 580K (roughly the temperature of an electric oven self-cleaning), the 10x reduction in temperature triggers a (10x)^4 reduction in blackbody emission (since it scales a R^2 T^4), so it now takes 200,000 years or so to cool. Another factor of 2x (reducing emission by 2^4 = 16 fold) and now we have a 3.2 million year cooling at roughly the same temperature the Earth already balances raditively with our modest absorption of sunlight. (The actual temperature would be bit higher than 290 K or 63 F since the Sun's impact would still have to be added.)

At 3.2 million years to cool without killing everything (and still being a bit hot) what is the point of this unsupported pseudo science? It clearly violates the 6-literal-day mandate *AND* physical plausibility. Why not just go back to "God did it" and let it rain for 40 days and nights and wait for the sewers to back up?

Here’s Walt Brown’s back of the envelope calculation for energy required. Note that the third column is labeled “kinetic energy” . I’ve only taken one thermodynamic course many many years ago. And all of that had been forgotten. But I’m sure there must be a distinction between “heat energy” and “kinetic energy”. As far as I can figure out from reading Walt Brown’s book with all of its footnotes, the difference is that kinetic energy moves in a direction. It has a vector component. That vector in Walt Browns theory points from the center of the earth to the sky. Radially. Exactly opposite gravity.

So, instead of some example of energy produced by the sun, what if you calculated on your envelope, how much energy is required to move half the earth’s ocean from beneath its crust, to a position on top of its crust — a distance according to Walt Brown is assumed to be 60 miles, in a direction opposite earth’s gravity. And that has to be in addition to all this other mass in the spread sheet that actually leaves the earth's gravitational influance. And if Walt Brown managed to do that, would the earth still glow a lot?

Then the question becomes, where would that kinetic energy sixty miles under the granite crust come from?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then the question becomes, where would that kinetic energy sixty miles under the granite crust come from?

That is the right question to ask: where would the kinetic energy sixty miles under the crust come from?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here’s Walt Brown’s back of the envelope calculation for energy required. Note that the third column is labeled “kinetic energy” .

generating KE is not 100% efficient. (and the 'waters of the deep' had none to begin with, so it all must be transfered to them.) There will be "waste heat" no matter the process. That's the heat that melts the surface of the Earth.

I’ve only taken one thermodynamic course many many years ago. And all of that had been forgotten. But I’m sure there must be a distinction between “heat energy” and “kinetic energy”. As far as I can figure out from reading Walt Brown’s book with all of its footnotes, the difference is that kinetic energy moves in a direction. It has a vector component.

If you want to find out what kinetic energy is I'd recommend any HS physics text and not the book of crank geologist. If your knowledge of even the most basic of physics is that limited, I'm not sure you can engage in meaningful conversation on this "model".

That vector in Walt Browns theory points from the center of the earth to the sky. Radially. Exactly opposite gravity.

View attachment 362407

The problem I hadn't even bothered with is that the vector away from the Earth is not compatible with *any* of these classes of Solar system objects. None. (And why the "irregular moons" and not the regular moons? That's really odd.)

So, instead of some example of energy produced by the sun, what if you calculated on your envelope, how much energy is required to move half the earth’s ocean from beneath its crust, to a position on top of its crust — a distance according to Walt Brown is assumed to be 60 miles, in a direction opposite earth’s gravity.

Why don't you figure it out? It doesn't take a Ph.D. in physics to figure it out. (When you do, assume "g" is a constant in mgh. It isn't but it is close enough for this purpose.)

And that has to be in addition to all this other mass in the spread sheet that actually leaves the earth's gravitational influance. And if Walt Brown managed to do that, would the earth still glow a lot?

It would, perhaps even hotter or longer. Think of all the heat generated to propel a tiny capsule in to orbit with a rocket. The things you want to lift off the ground are much much much much more massive than some space capsule.

Then the question becomes, where would that kinetic energy sixty miles under the granite crust come from?

Walt should have started with this question. Until the force the does the work on those "under the crust oceans" is identified the whole model is ill-defined phantasy physics. (It is still phantasy physics once defined, but that is for another day.)

 

[AV1611VET]

(It is still phantasy physics once defined, but that is for another day.)

Cartoon Physics

 

[sjastro]

View attachment 362407

Congratulations for Brown getting one entry in the table right given everything else he writes is so comprehensively wrong.

When I did my own calculations the KE (kinetic energy) was based on the escape velocity of objects from Earth 11.2 km/s which represented the minimum KE required.
When considering where these objects end up in the solar system requires extra calculations such as escape velocity relative to the Sun and whether the direction of motion was the same as the Earth’s orbit (prograde) or opposite (retrograde).

In the case of comets in the Oort cloud the gravitational force is so weak, the orbits are easily perturbed by external forces such as passing stars and molecular clouds.
In this case in Brown’s scenario, a comet launched from Earth radially, the additional tangential velocity component in the prograde direction required is √(42.1² - 29.78²) ≈ 29.8 km/s where 42.1 and 29.78 are the escape velocity from the Sun at 1 AU (astronomical unit) and the Earth’s orbital speed respectively.

The launch velocity from Earth in the prograde direction Vp = √(11.2² + 29.8²) ≈ 31.8 km/s agreeing with Brown’s result when rounded.

A comet launched from Earth in the retrograde direction which Brown has ignored, the additional velocity is simply the vector addition 42.1 + 29.78 ≈ 71.9 km/s.
The launch velocity from Earth in the retrograde direction Vr = √(11.2² + 71.9²) ≈ 72.7 km/s.

For objects closer to the Sun the calculations are more complicated as the resulting orbits are more stable and the escape velocities are such that the objects remain in these orbits.
This is known as the Hohmann Transfer orbit.

As an example consider a TNO at an orbit of 50 AU transferred from an Earth orbit at 1 AU.
The semi major axis (a) for a transfer is a = (1 + 50)/2 = 25.5 AU.
The velocity v at the Earth’s orbit is v = √(GMₛ(2/rₑ - 1/a)) ≈ 41.7 km/s.
The velocity relative to Earth vₑ = 41.7 - 29.78 ≈ 11.9 km/s.

The launch velocity Vp in the prograde direction is Vp = √(11.2² + 11.9²) ≈ 16.4 km/s.

The velocity vₑ in the retrograde direction is vₑ = 41.7 + 29.78 = 71.48 km/s.
The launch velocity in the retrograde direction Vr = √(11.2² + 71.48²) ≈ 72.3 km/s.

The corrected table is shown as follows:

​

There should be a contest that anyone who can find the greatest number of errors in Hydroplate theory is deserving of a prize.

 

[awstar]

Why don't you figure it out? It doesn't take a Ph.D. in physics to figure it out. (When you do, assume "g" is a constant in mgh. It isn't but it is close enough for this purpose.)

I did. Except instead of using a slide rule when I went to school, I asked chatGPT.

My Question:
how much energy in ergs would be required to lift 1 gallon of water 60 miles against the gravity of earth?

Final Answer:
It would take approximately

3.58×10^13 ergs to lift 1 gallon of water 60 miles against Earth's gravity.

=======================================================

My Question:
how many ergs for half the water in the oceans on earth?

Final Answer:
It would take approximately

6.64×10^32 ergs to lift half of Earth's ocean water 60 miles against gravity.

seems like Walt Brown used his extra energy to send some dirt to Saturn and beyond.

 

[awstar]

Walt should have started with this question. Until the force the does the work on those "under the crust oceans" is identified the whole model is ill-defined phantasy physics. (It is still phantasy physics once defined, but that is for another day.)

Walt Brown identifies multiple sources of energy that gets the energy packaged into the SuperCriticalWater. That energy then becomes kinetic energy as the crack opens in the earth and the pressure drops. It seems to work a lot like what happens when drillers of a bore hole accidentally strike a pocket of SuperCriticalWater (according to chatGPT).

According to Walt Brown, the pressure in the SCW cavity pressing down on the water moves it into and up the crack which is now miles wide. When the water being pushed up the crack thermodynamically explodes, it’s internal chemical energy becomes kinetic — is forced into one direction. Up the crack and toward the stars — at supersonic speed. Walt describes it as a two stage rocket. The first stage moves the water into the crack and upwards. The second stage sends it toward the stars.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did. Except instead of using a slide rule when I went to school, I asked chatGPT.

O great an AI (artificial idiot). [I despise those things.] Its work seems OK this time.

seems like Walt Brown used his extra energy to send some dirt to Saturn and beyond.

The only source of energy to lift that water that is "clear" is the sinking of the crust to fill the volume once filled by the "ocean". To find the energy available you'd need to know the area of the ocean pockets evacuated (do the cover the whole Earth, or just part) and the volume of the displaced water (which you seem to have). Then you can compute the distance the crust falls and with that "h" compute the mgh for the sinking crust. That's the energy available, and once the energy to lift the water is subtracted, you have something close the the energy available to do other work.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.. and yet you continue to have 'Science can take a hike' at the footer of your Avatar and then you conflate miraculous acts with objective physical processes and biblical desciptions of miracles as objective history, whilst invoking 'proofs'? Gross hypocrisy, I call that!

If you started by being honest and consistent, you might stand a slim chance of avoiding the ostracization you bemoan.

But sometimes, science can take a hike................at least from a Christian perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

But sometimes, science can take a hike................at least from a Christian perspective.

Be careful with these remarks here!

You're in a vegan conference with a box of Kentucky Fried Chicken!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Be careful with these remarks here!

You're in a vegan conference with a box of Kentucky Fried Chicken!

Actually, the Kentucky Fried Chicken box is my cover for covertly bringing in my Philosopher's Toolkit.