Earth May Have Been A Waterworld

Subduction Zone · Mar 14, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
I get evolution from my alma mater's website used to build a teaching curriculum on evolution -- Understanding Evolution. The big bang is from Stephen Hawking tutorials.

What is your big bang theory and where do you get it?

Molecular activity? Huh? We're discussing quantum particles for singularity.

No, you didn't understand time dilation, observer, and Einstein special theory. Those are pretty basic. The use of it to explain how things were at a given time, such as the big bang, would be very complex. The explanation for the creation scientist side is the difference between day 4 and day 6 of creation. There are four different models and the peer review debate has been going on for a few years now.

On the evos side, they have to explain the big bang, how the universe expanded, how everything we know about the universe spread and just so happen to fall into place. There is no explanation nor a model. All we get are those ubiquitous diagrams of big bang.

Next, the speed of light comes into play with the CMB and its radiation. We have the same temperature throughout our universe even though the big bang would mean it was hotter towards the origination point. This is admitted by your scientists. What was measured was the temperature of the CMB and its radiation. There really isn't a good explanation as I said most of big bang violates the law of physics. Yet, big bang is what is given for the origination of the universe. Not much further explanation besides cosmic inflation which also violates the law of physics. Basically, it's a mess but people accept it. That's why it's fake science. What do most people do when they do not understand something? They defer to the experts, but I think these experts are wrong. They're basically practicing theoretical physics. What they explain is like a religion or metaphysics such as dark matter and dark energy. Can you explain that?

I think the only part which is good is the CMB and the description of it. I give credit to Hawking and his team for their explanation and whoever discovered it.

You may have gone to Berkeley. But that does not mean that you can understand the resources that they supply. In fact you repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding. Nor do you understand the Big Bang at all. Space itself was contracted. You keep trying to apply Newtonian physics to a phenomenon that can only be explained with a combination of relativity and quantum dynamics and almost certainly a bit more. Nor does the Big Bang violate any law of physics. Your understanding of physics is simply incorrect. Oddly enough you never will discuss one point at a time so that you might learn from your mistakes. When you have a wild Gish Gallop of errors all that people can do is to shake their heads and say that you are wrong.

Jok · Mar 15, 2020

This thread possessed me to watch Waterworld today. I just thought that that was crucial information that everyone needed to know!

VirOptimus · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
What part didn't you understand? I think what you don't get is there is an observer on Earth and that which is traveling at the speed of light. Then we get time dilation. The more detailed explanation is more rigorous and you would not understand it. Just look at the way you write and describe things.

The universe and Earth aren't billions of years old. Just using common sense, the rocks and fossils would not last that long. For the universe, we see entire galaxies, black holes, suns, planets, exoplanets, moons, and more heavenly bodies being destroyed and changed just in our lifetime.

We know what the speed of light is. If one was travelling that fast from SF to New York, then it would be instantaneous. More evidence that you did not understand time dilation. We can go over the math if you still do not get it.

You really really dont understand relativity and time.

46AND2 · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
For the others who have some basic understanding, here is Einstein's special theory.

The time dilation starts around 4:17.

It was a simple video. The fact that you manage to bungle up its point so badly is either sad, or suspicious. Hard to tell which. There's a term for that...can you guess what it is?

Still waiting for my quid pro quo. Why don't all fossils contain significant amounts of C14 if the earth is only old enough for one half-life?

Ophiolite · Mar 15, 2020

Jok said:
This thread possessed me to watch Waterworld today. I just thought that that was crucial information that everyone needed to know!

I certainly found the information more interesting, useful, well presented and more likely to be an accurate appreciation of reality than anything posted by member JamesBond and so I thank you for that.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

Mitty said:
That depends on what the definition of a "mountain" is in the original text, and not what our modern definition of a mountain is. Is the "mount of olives" actually defined as a mountain or is it just a hill with some olive trees growing on it. But either way it still doesn't change the fact that the KJV and the Hebrew bible say that the flood was only 15 cubits high and drained away like any other river flood, and that an olive tree was unaffected; and those versions thus have credibility. In contrast the personal versions by the writers of the NIV etc makes the story complete nonsense with zero credibility.

Like many bible stories, it is an impossible exaggeration - this particular one is based on similar much earlier stories, themselves probably distortions of a real flood or floods. This is what happens with human story-telling, especially in oral traditions - the stories become exaggerated and embellished over time, and used as social and moral guidelines.

Similarly, the writers of the NIV even claim that Lot's sons-in-law were homosexuals who wanted to have sex with the two blokes in Lot's house instead of with their future wives by dishonestly redefining the interpreted English word "know" to mean rape. The Oxford English Dictionary, however, defines the word "know" as be aware of, recognize, identify, be acquainted with etc, and not as a synonym for rape.

The word to 'know' means to have sex with (carnal knowledge). The kind of sex involved would be contextual (possibly not consensual).

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
What does the big bang state? It states a beginning. That helps the creation scientists and I.

It states a beginning to the universe as we know it. We can only extrapolate back to a point of extreme density and temperature, before which our current models are inadequate to describe.

Before that there was an invisible particle of infinite temperature and infinite density. These particles popped in and out of existence. This part violates the laws of physics so is incomprehensible. Next came an expansion of the universe. If this was true, then the temperature near the origination point would be hot while the temperature towards the edge would be cooler. However, what we find is the temperature is the same throughout the universe at 2.73 degrees Kelvin. Thus, you have to explain the temperature being constant.

There are a number of misconceptions here.

If we use General Relativity to extrapolate back as far as possible, we do get infinite temperatures and densities - but we know that this model is not suitable for describing that regime because in those conditions, quantum mechanics becomes as significant, if not more so, than gravity - and General Relativity doesn't take account of quantum mechanics. What we need to describe these conditions is a theory of quantum gravity, which is, as yet, incomplete. So we really don't know what happened - the infinities are indicative of the current model failing; cosmologists and physicists working in this field generally don't think a physical singularity of infinities is a likely reality.

Particles 'popping into and out of existence' is a description of what are often called 'virtual particles'. This really just a convenient visualisation of the excited oscillations of the underlying quantum fields which happen constantly. Real particles are excitations of quantum fields which have sufficient energy to persist for a significant time. They are both a direct result of the fundamental laws of quantum physics.

The big bang expansion did not occur at a particular point in space, the whole of space expanded, everywhere, like expanding foam. There was no centre or edge of expansion. The temperature, apart from minor quantum fluctuations, decreased more or less uniformly across the whole of space. The cosmic microwave background is the earliest view we have of the light of the big bang, and it is extremely uniform (although very sensitive instruments have detected the tiny fluctuations in it). The big bang did not occur at a point in space but a point in time.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
They weren't that high. It was a time of great topography change on Earth. Existing mountain rose higher and its valley became lower. The evidence is our deepest oceans and highest mountains.

Citation?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
It's not a misunderstanding. You keep assuming the cell which is cheating and what Darwin was given. Before that you have to have amino acids form into proteins. Amino acids dissolve in water.

It's fortunate that they do dissolve in water, otherwise they would not be able to participate in the complex organic water-based chemistry of life! Dissolving in water doesn't mean that they disintegrate, they become ionised.

Another cheating is being given the big bang.

As already mentioned, Darwin was explaining how a simple principle could account for the diversity of life in the world that he had explored. How that world, and the universe it was part of, came about was irrelevant to that explanation.

Mitty · Mar 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Like many bible stories, it is an impossible exaggeration - this particular one is based on similar much earlier stories, themselves probably distortions of a real flood or floods. This is what happens with human story-telling, especially in oral traditions - the stories become exaggerated and embellished over time, and used as social and moral guidelines.

And I'm sure the original biblical story was just describing a local event with a supernatural embellishment.

The word to 'know' means to have sex with (carnal knowledge).

Not in my vocabulary and not in the vocabulary of anyone else I know.

The kind of sex involved would be contextual.

When the word "know" is used in that context in the bible it describes a loving relationship. The context of the S&G story doesn't mean that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two strangers in Lot's house instead of with their future wives as some falsely claim, but means that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to know what the two blokes were up to in Lot's house, and why Lot mocked them and tried to pimp their future wives.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

Mitty said:
And I'm sure the original biblical story was just describing a local event with a supernatural embellishment.

Exactly.

Not in my vocabulary and not in the vocabulary of anyone else I know.

You need to get out and meet more people

We were taught this in school by the Benedictine monks (amid a lot of smothered giggles and blushes).

Mitty · Mar 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Exactly.

You need to get out and meet more people

We were taught this in school by the Benedictine monks (amid a lot of smothered giggles and blushes).

But did the monks say that it was actually Lot's sons-in-law who were banging on the door, and not just the other men and their women & children in the town?

And were the monks relating the story from their personal experiences with other monks?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

Mitty said:
But did the monks say that it was actually Lot's sons-in-law who were banging on the door, and not just the other men women & children in the town?

I was referring to 'know' in that context meaning to 'have carnal knowledge of'; I don't recall what they said about the details of the story. My impression has always been the former rather than the latter, i.e. that it was supposed to be a moral horror. I do remember being a bit shocked that they'd put that in a holy book (such childish naivety!).

Mitty · Mar 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I was referring to 'know' in that context meaning to 'have carnal knowledge of'; I don't recall what they said about the details of the story. My impression has always been the former rather than the latter, i.e. that it was supposed to be a moral horror. I do remember being a bit shocked that they'd put that in a holy book (such childish naivety!).

The moral horror was Lot, not his sons-in-law.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 15, 2020

Mitty said:
The moral horror was Lot, not his sons-in-law.

I wouldn't know; as I said, I don't remember the details - it's just another morality story.

Astrophile · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
What was used to determine the earth was 4.5 B yrs old? Who did it? I know, but you probably don't know and yet you question my evolution knowledge.

Claire Patterson did it in 1956. He measured the isotopic ratios of lead (Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204) in troilite inclusion in the Canon Diablo iron meteorite. Because these inclusions contained insignificant amounts of uranium and thorium, their Pb isotopic ratios had remained the same since the meteorite was formed at the beginning of the solar system. According to Arthur Holmes, in Principles of Physical Geology, the ratios were Pb-206/Pb-204 = 9.46 and Pb-207/Pb-204 = 10.34.

Having thus found the primordial isotopic ratios, and knowing the amounts of uranium in the Earth's crust and the half-lives of uranium-238 and uranium-235, Patterson was able to calculate that it needed 4.55±0.05 billion years to change the Pb isotopic ratios from their primordial values to the values found in present-day lead ores.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Another cheating is being given the big bang.

Buddy, you are really all over the place and off the rails with your claims, but now you say 'evos' are 'cheating'?

jamesbond007 · Mar 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Like many bible stories, it is an impossible exaggeration - this particular one is based on similar much earlier stories, themselves probably distortions of a real flood or floods. This is what happens with human story-telling, especially in oral traditions - the stories become exaggerated and embellished over time, and used as social and moral guidelines.

You just ignored all my vids of underwater cities and buried civilizations and more. It goes to show you have nothing to back you claims up. It's the creation side that has the mountain of evidence.

The global flood is what happened and the mythical stories from around the world backs this up. Usually myths are based on real events. Only the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before, but its earlier version was different from Noah's flood. It was not complete. It was added to after Moses wrote about the global flood of Noah in the Bible.

Subduction Zone · Mar 15, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
You just ignored all my vids of underwater cities and buried civilizations and more. It goes to show you have nothing to back you claims up. It's the creation side that has the mountain of evidence.

The global flood is what happened and the mythical stories from around the world backs this up. Usually myths are based on real events. Only the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before, but its earlier version was different from Noah's flood. It was not complete. It was added to after Moses wrote about the global flood of Noah in the Bible.

No, you don't have evidence. All you have is misinterpretation. When you ignore the evidence that refutes the flood you demonstrate that all you have is cherry picking.

jamesbond007 · Mar 15, 2020

Astrophile said:
Claire Patterson did it in 1956. He measured the isotopic ratios of lead (Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204) in troilite inclusion in the Canon Diablo iron meteorite. Because these inclusions contained insignificant amounts of uranium and thorium, their Pb isotopic ratios had remained the same since the meteorite was formed at the beginning of the solar system. According to Arthur Holmes, in Principles of Physical Geology, the ratios were Pb-206/Pb-204 = 9.46 and Pb-207/Pb-204 = 10.34.

Having thus found the primordial isotopic ratios, and knowing the amounts of uranium in the Earth's crust and the half-lives of uranium-238 and uranium-235, Patterson was able to calculate that it needed 4.55±0.05 billion years to change the Pb isotopic ratios from their primordial values to the values found in present-day lead ores.

Very good. Patterson was also given credit for building a clean room for his testing. This came long after Darwin was dead and he thought 3 B years was not enough.

Anyway, creationists do not question Patterson's methodology but his assumptions. Most of what has been tested with radioisotope dating has been found to have much carbon-14 remaining. Thus, they can do radiocarbon dating on it. Thus, we end up with two very different dates.

Earth May Have Been A Waterworld

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads