Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[shinbits]

That is what we are asking you. You have already claimed to know the answer but seem to be avoiding giving us any detail. What would be the affect on the winds? 10mph, 50mph, 100mph? You are making the claim?.What would be the effect? Why is it a problem? What would be the affect at a point halfway between the equator and the north pole?

Surely you can answer this. Your entire ad-hoc claim is dependent on YOU being able to provide some calculations and numbers.

You have failed to do so. You can't even answer your own question.
what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime,

What's your answer and how did you come to that conclusion? Where is your math and work? What units are you using and what numbers did you come up with?You are arguing from a lack of knowledge and expecting us to accept it.

well.....the only conclusion that one can come up with is that that winds would ravage the earth. The earth would spinning very very quickly. I'm sure if someone more knowledgable wanted to do the math, the only conclusion would be that the winds would be too much for life to live on earth.

Geology, I have no idea. Someone said that this is stuff that can be learned in about two hours or so of study. With basic biological evolution, and how mutations work, I find that the more I learn, the more I'm able to refute it. I had some pretty nice "training" by EmperialAgnostic and Dannager.

Geology, I guess I'll just need some time to learn it, and make more valid objections.

I assume I'll have to butt-kiss Frumious to get him to teach me some pointers. So until then, I'll just stick with what EmperialAgnostic and Dannager showed me, and only post on those types of thread.

So Frumious......interested in a pupil who's goal is to try to refute what you believe?

 

[Adriac]

well.....the only conclusion that one can come up with is that that winds would ravage the earth.

That's the only conclusion you can come to, because you've already decided. Do you have any actual data to support that? Can you even describe what effect the earth's rotation has on its current climate?

 

[notto]

well.....the only conclusion that one can come up with is that that winds would ravage the earth. The earth would spinning very very quickly.

Why would you say it would be spinning very quickly? Would the speed at halfway from the equator to the north pole be faster than it is currently at the equator?

See, you need to understand the physics and geometry behind what you are saying. If you did and actually sat down and worked it out, you would realize that the change you are talking about really isn't that big of a deal even if it was valid. The 'speed' of the spinning earth relative to its surface is different at the equator than at the areas between the equator and the poles so unless the change would impact all if it to make it more drastic than what we experience at the equator right now, your conclusion doesn't stack up or make sense.

You obviously haven't thought this one through and have no real idea of the numbers or impact your are making claims about. All you have done is make a claim, failed to support it, and now you are trying to put the burden on others to do your homework to support your silly claims. Based on the statements you have made in the past that have been shown to be silly or simply wrong, it's hardly worth the time.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Ioinc]

Hi all,

I've just managed to read all the posts since yesterday...
(on this thread)

Hmmmmm

Of 2 responses to my article I noticed the issue of the decay rate of the hymalaya mountain range. One relates that volcanic activity is not mentioned and the other that the earth's crust uplift is not taken into account (my words paraphrasing).

In fact my article clearly states:
"This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates"

As for volcanic activity please mention the name of one volcanic mountain in that range?

Since evolution is held up generally speaking as how we got here, it is consistent with that to incorporate abiogenesis in a general and simplified article. Therefore my arguments against abiogenesis apply within that view of evolution.

The axiom of a text out of context is a pretext is relevant.

I note C14 dating has been mentioned.
I went to a lecture by David Rohl (I think was his name) the archaeologist and he clearly stated how C14 was not relied upon anymore by his peers as reliable and often found faulty agaisnt hard finds like clay pots...

I trust this helps some.

Regards,

Jac

This is not the post I was expecting from you.

After two lengthy and well thought out posts that covered the issues in your paper point by point (with supporting links) this is your total rebuttal?

Can the lack of a response mean that you no longer agree with about 95% of what you had originally written?

Where is your counter statement to any of it?


Your response brings to mind this quote..

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'"

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Evolutionists,

I wish to affirm your freedom to believe what you wish to believe...

I still have not heard of a name of a volcano in the Hymalayas?

And I think am still being read out of context.

But, you are free to do that.

It does not make it true.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Elduran]

Dear Evolutionists,

I wish to affirm your freedom to believe what you wish to believe...

I still have not heard of a name of a volcano in the Hymalayas?

And I think am still being read out of context.

But, you are free to do that.

It does not make it true.

Regards,

Jac

No, having all the evidence on one's side might support the case for being true though, something that cannot possibly be applied to your position. Quite simply, in terms of actual evidence, Creationism is totally untenable.

 

[Dannager]

Dear Evolutionists,

I wish to affirm your freedom to believe what you wish to believe...

I still have not heard of a name of a volcano in the Hymalayas?

And I think am still being read out of context.

But, you are free to do that.

It does not make it true.

Regards,

Jac

You're right, in my haste to respond to the whole article I failed to notice that you were talking solely about the Himalayas rather than simply using it as a sole source. Allow me to properly refute your argument, then.

For any of this to be true for the 'evolution' of water organisms to land organisms then the land areas and the mountain ranges that make up the significant mass of land above sea level need to have been around for at least hundreds of millions of years.

For the purposes of this refutation we can assume this to be true.

Since land needs to be there for land creatures to exist. Now the tallest mountain range on earth is the Himalayas with Mount Everest (Chomolangma in Tibet and Sagamartha in Nepal) as the tallest at 8,850 metres: 8.85 km (29,035 feet).

This is also accurate.

The current observed erosion rate of this range of mountains is "height - 2-4 km (or more) of rock is removed from the surface of the Himalayas every 1 million years"4. So taking 3 km per million years as a reasonable rate from this, there will be no mountains there in 3 million years time: 3 km X 3 million years = 9 km erosion of more than the present height of the world's tallest mountain range. This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates: the plates that are understood to carry the major land masses as the surface of the earth.

The problem is, the erosion rates don't take into account the increase in height due to tectonic activity. I don't know how you came away with the idea that Himalayan erosion counter-acts tectonic activity - it doesn't. The Himalayan mountain range is, currently, measured to be increasing in height at a rate of roughly 6.1 cm every year. Do you know what this figure means? In 3 million years, as you used, the Himalayans will grow 183 kilometers in height at the current rate of growth. Now, obviously this growth rate hasn't held true for the past few million years, but your claim that the Himalayas are losing height is completely baseless. The professor you contacted at UCSB was speaking solely of loss due to erosion, not of an actual loss in net height. The Himalayan mountains are well known for being the best example of a growing mountain range.

However, I'm anticipating you denying all of this in advance. I have this habit of writing e-mails to professors or other authors whose works are cited by creationists asking them to clarify their statements that are usually taken out of context, as this one was. I've gone ahead and sent the following e-mail to Gail Gallessich, the author of the article you cited for the erosion figures seen in your paper:

Dear Gail Gallessich,

I am a student at the University of California, Irvine and am currently involved in a debate regarding the age of the earth (tangentially as it relates to the evolution vs. creationism debate) with a participant who is using the aformentioned article (Himalaya Erosion Found Uniform) found on the UCSB website. He says that he also contacted you (via e-mail) asking for confirmation of the 2 - 4 km / million years rate of erosion. I am worried that he may have made a serious error, however, in assuming that the erosion rate you cited represented a net loss of material from the Himalayan mountain range, and that this meant that the mountain range is decreasing in height. From what I understand, current measurements as to the change in height of the Himalayan mountain range place growth at around 6 cm / year. While I have presented this information to him (along with noting that the Himalayan's are one of the world's best-known growing mountain ranges), I feel that a statement from you, his original source, would go much further towards convincing him of the error.
My question then, in summary, is: Do your figures represent a net loss in the height of the Himalayan mountain range, or is the mountain range seeing a net gain in height instead? Thank you for any clarification you can offer.

Sincerely,
[Name removed]

P.S. For reference the paper in which the participant cited your article can be found at http://www.jarom.net/impossible.php

The rest of that section of your paper operates under the assumption that the Himalayas are shrinking, which isn't the case.

In the chance that the facts above don't convince you, I'll be sure to post Gail's response here so you can see it.

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Dannager,

Thank you for your latest response.

Not just that you are responding, but that it is more readable as an accurate examination of the matter in hand relating to the himalayas...
(the absurd interjection of volcanos previously off putting...)

You are absolutely correct that I have understood my correspondence with Dr Ann Blythe, Research Professor
Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California to say that the net height is decreasing taking into account the tectonic activity...

I have re-read this correspondence in the light of your latest post and am open to see that I may indeed have misread her.

I look forward to read the response you obtain.
My inclusion of the argument was clear: as an aim to show simply the young earth that is around us. If that example is not workable I will of course remove it and replace it with another.

Regards,

Jac

 

[futzman]

well.....the only conclusion that one can come up with is that that winds would ravage the earth. The earth would spinning very very quickly. I'm sure if someone more knowledgable wanted to do the math, the only conclusion would be that the winds would be too much for life to live on earth.

So, you think the winds are due to the rotation of the earth? Have you ever heard of a little star nearby called the "sun"? Here's a link for you:

http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/1998/p/phenomena/dpwindover.htm

Geology, I have no idea. Someone said that this is stuff that can be learned in about two hours or so of study. With basic biological evolution, and how mutations work, I find that the more I learn, the more I'm able to refute it. I had some pretty nice "training" by EmperialAgnostic and Dannager.

You're joking about the 2 hours thing I hope. Otherwise, there are a lot of students wasting a lot of time in Geology 101.

Geology, I guess I'll just need some time to learn it, and make more valid objections.

I assume I'll have to butt-kiss Frumious to get him to teach me some pointers. So until then, I'll just stick with what EmperialAgnostic and Dannager showed me, and only post on those types of thread.

So Frumious......interested in a pupil who's goal is to try to refute what you believe?

So, you're not intelligent enough to read a geology text and learn the rudiments of the subject on your own? No? Then I doubt Frumious would be interested in a student who won't read the textbook.

Futz

 

[shinbits]

So, you think the winds are due to the rotation of the earth? Have you ever heard of a little star nearby called the "sun"? Here's a link for you:

Earth's rotation affects winds. Read some previous posts with links showing how.

You're joking about the 2 hours thing I hope. Otherwise, there are a lot of students wasting a lot of time in Geology 101.

Someone else said that.

So, you're not intelligent enough to read a geology text and learn the rudiments of the subject on your own? No? Futz

Don't most students learn from a teacher?

You are a very bitter 51 year old man.

 

[shinbits]

Why would you say it would be spinning very quickly? Would the speed at halfway from the equator to the north pole be faster than it is currently at the equator?

If there are less hours in the day, the only way that can be accomplished is if the earth speeds up. The faster it spins, the shorter a day is; the slower it spins, the longer a day would be.

 

[shinbits]

That's the only conclusion you can come to, because you've already decided. Do you have any actual data to support that? Can you even describe what effect the earth's rotation has on its current climate?

I posted a link on this. Go back and find it.

 

[Adriac]

I posted a link on this. Go back and find it.

No, as I recall you posted a link about how the current climate affects rotation. Nothing about the opposite.

Which does nothing to help the appearance that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[shinbits]

No, as I recall you posted a link about how the current climate affects rotation. Nothing about the opposite.

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/topex/activities/topex_basics/topex07.html


[SIZE=+2]How Earth's Rotation Affects Winds & Currents[/SIZE]


Our planet's rotation produces a force on all bodies moving relative to theEarth. Due to Earth's approximately spherical shape, this force is greatest at the poles and least at the Equator.

The force, called the "Coriolis effect," causes the direction of winds and ocean currents to be deflected.

In the Northern Hemisphere, wind and currents are deflected toward the right, in the Southern Hemisphere they are deflected to the left.

 

[shinbits]

And here's what I posted earlier, that u said I didn't post.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html


"The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems."

Earth's rotation does have an effect on winds.

 

[Ioinc]

Dear Evolutionists,

I wish to affirm your freedom to believe what you wish to believe...

I still have not heard of a name of a volcano in the Hymalayas?

And I think am still being read out of context.

But, you are free to do that.

It does not make it true.

Regards,

Jac

If you really believe that please explain why.
Why are the responses to your article (post #13 and post #16) incorrect?

Almost everything you have said seems to have been refuted and shown that what othes believe is in fact true. (or at least that what you believe is not true)

 

[TeddyKGB]

And here's what I posted earlier, that u said I didn't post.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html


"The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems."

Earth's rotation does have an effect on winds.

Granted. Now let's have the data that shows that the 20-hour-day-Earth's weather would have been catastrophic for living things.

 

[shinbits]

Granted. Now let's have the data that shows that the 20-hour-day-Earth's weather would have been catastrophic for living things.

Okay.

 

[Adriac]

And here's what I posted earlier, that u said I didn't post.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html


"The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems."

Earth's rotation does have an effect on winds.

Don't stop there. What about the Coriolis force, or tidal and atmospheric bulges around the equator? Come on, give us some reason to suspect you actually looked into this rather than just making it up.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And here's what I posted earlier, that u said I didn't post.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html


"The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems."

Earth's rotation does have an effect on winds.

Yes it affects the winds. That is why hurricanes rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. It especially affects the jetstream. However, it far the the major factor in wind velocity, especially in the lower atmosphere. Winds are mostly powered by the sun through latent heat of evaporation of water. This is why hurricanes form in summer and why water temps have such a big effect on the power of hurricanes. I really don't think you can show that hurricanes would be massively more powerfull if the earth were spinning fast enough for a 20 hour day rather than a 24 hour day.