-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Flood Geology
- Thread starter Jerry Smith
- Start date
I can't believe there is disagreement of the meaning of "scientific theory". Perhaps science universities need to teach "debating with the obstinate fool" to properly prepare their graduates for todays American society.
Whatever.
Youre refusal to accept the terminology of theory in a science context does not diminish the reality of scientific theory. Someone needs to tell Steven Hawkings that Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity is just an unproven idea.
Whatever.
Youre refusal to accept the terminology of theory in a science context does not diminish the reality of scientific theory. Someone needs to tell Steven Hawkings that Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity is just an unproven idea.
Upvote
0
Who are you addressing with this? Starscream, Hank, & I all seem to have the same idea of what "theory" means as you do, and I didn't notice that Josephus took any time "arguing" about it... If you are addressing me, then please let me point out that I am using the terms the way Josephus does so that he and I don't have to spend a lot of time debating their meaning. If you are talking about Hank, from what I can tell, it looked like he was showing you that your definition and his meant the same in essence, only that his didn't spell out the details.
Either way... this thread is beginning to drift...
Upvote
0
d'oh!
You're right... I mis-read previous posts... that's what I get for jumping to conclusions.
sigh
Upvote
0
"Oh and you still have yet to report on the new waterbaloon/apple experiment... What did you find?"
I used another apple, a small one, but it was definately larger than a bb. Your experiment with a single bb does not accurately reflect the prediction of what caused the Yucatan crater. So I used a small apple. The balloon burst at the outer seams; not at the impact site, but rather several inches away where the pressure of the compressed water ruptured at the greatest pressure point: a line equidistant from the equator from the impact, the distance from surface area of the larger apple inside, and the conical pressure vectors of the combined pressure variables which intersected the balloon opposite the impact. So it disproved my prediction that it would burst equidistant from impact to exit vector, but rather the results were more complext (and extremely wet I might add). I ran it again with a video camera to capture it, and I've played back the frames several times to see the approximate rupture points. What IS proven is the idea that the impact itself would not be the site of greatest damage to the balloon. You too can setup what I did. Get a ballon filler thingy, blow it up, insert something round (like an apple or orange) through it making sure it has a string attached do you can make it look like the core of a planet, then take the baloon and fill it with water. Tie the sting the balloon closure and then set the ballon on the top of a a PVC pipe planted vertical outside. Mark the ballon with letters or numbers to identify areas of the ballon. Take a big object approximately the relative size of the asteroid that caused that crater in the Gulf of Mexico, and WHAM! Notice the break points. Though it's rather crude, and the strength of the tied part of the water ballon never will break, I think the experiment demonstrates rather well the conditions of what may have happened to the Earth's crust had it been on top of a layer of ocean water or steam.
Jerry Smith:
So how do you know Yo Yo strings aren't in fact doing what you just predicted?
Stick your hand outside the window when driving through a bug-filled countryside in a hot June day. After a while, one side will have more ded bugs splattered on it, than the other side of your hand.
If you want to see a map of Mercury for yourself:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/mercuryfact_bg.gif
Notice, top to bottom, a disparity of craters.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mercury/mercuryglobe1.jpg
Wow, this shot gives you a clear idea of what I'm talking about: the right side of the picture is riddled with more, fresh craters, than on the left of the picture which looks kinda sparse of these kinds of craters you obviously see on the right. The left side of Mercy seems to have only older, more run-down craters, while the further right you go on the surface from the left in this picture, there is more and more riddling of fresh craters.
I used another apple, a small one, but it was definately larger than a bb. Your experiment with a single bb does not accurately reflect the prediction of what caused the Yucatan crater. So I used a small apple. The balloon burst at the outer seams; not at the impact site, but rather several inches away where the pressure of the compressed water ruptured at the greatest pressure point: a line equidistant from the equator from the impact, the distance from surface area of the larger apple inside, and the conical pressure vectors of the combined pressure variables which intersected the balloon opposite the impact. So it disproved my prediction that it would burst equidistant from impact to exit vector, but rather the results were more complext (and extremely wet I might add). I ran it again with a video camera to capture it, and I've played back the frames several times to see the approximate rupture points. What IS proven is the idea that the impact itself would not be the site of greatest damage to the balloon. You too can setup what I did. Get a ballon filler thingy, blow it up, insert something round (like an apple or orange) through it making sure it has a string attached do you can make it look like the core of a planet, then take the baloon and fill it with water. Tie the sting the balloon closure and then set the ballon on the top of a a PVC pipe planted vertical outside. Mark the ballon with letters or numbers to identify areas of the ballon. Take a big object approximately the relative size of the asteroid that caused that crater in the Gulf of Mexico, and WHAM! Notice the break points. Though it's rather crude, and the strength of the tied part of the water ballon never will break, I think the experiment demonstrates rather well the conditions of what may have happened to the Earth's crust had it been on top of a layer of ocean water or steam.
Jerry Smith:
So how do you know Yo Yo strings aren't in fact doing what you just predicted?
Stick your hand outside the window when driving through a bug-filled countryside in a hot June day. After a while, one side will have more ded bugs splattered on it, than the other side of your hand.
If you want to see a map of Mercury for yourself:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/mercuryfact_bg.gif
Notice, top to bottom, a disparity of craters.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mercury/mercuryglobe1.jpg
Wow, this shot gives you a clear idea of what I'm talking about: the right side of the picture is riddled with more, fresh craters, than on the left of the picture which looks kinda sparse of these kinds of craters you obviously see on the right. The left side of Mercy seems to have only older, more run-down craters, while the further right you go on the surface from the left in this picture, there is more and more riddling of fresh craters.
Upvote
0
Even mars confirms my theory:
A Topographical Map of Mars
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/mars_topo_sinu.jpg
Notice the location of the craters... from bottom to top.
A Topographical Map of Mars
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/mars_topo_sinu.jpg
Notice the location of the craters... from bottom to top.
Upvote
0
I don't "KNOW" it. However, I can see how the evidence stacks up. If I make my predictions to vague and general then the evidence might just support the yo-yo theory. On the other hand, if I quantify my predictions (we can expect sun-spots to track planetary motion continuing on a line that intersects the planetary center of mass with a deviation of no more than .05% as calculated from the model), and if I can make predictions of what MUST be found rather than what MIGHT be found, and do the same for the standard theory, the better theory will emerge relatively quickly.
What if you turn your hand over and over as you drive along? After all the moon has more craters on the side near to earth, but it is spinning on its axis, at the rate of approximately one day per earth month.
If you are saying the moon's near side was scarred by these impacts in less than one lunar half-day, then you can make some quantifiable predictions. No, I am not going to do it: it is your theory, I would like to see you do it. Calculate, based on the mean crater depth, and knowledge of the mineral composition of the moon's surface how much energy was transferred to the moon in the average impact. Count the craters, multiply by the energy transfer by number of craters.
From this, you can estimate just how many impacts per hour the moon could have withstood without breaking up, being knocked far out of its orbit, or melting.
I think what you are observing in these two is camera/lighting bias. These look like the camera was positioned much nearer the "middle" and "top" respectively, and they second picture looks like light reflections near the "horizon" may have obscured detail. However, there may already exist data on the mercurian crater count and distribution you could use to test your theory. If you can find it - please post it.
Edit to fix ubb tags
Upvote
0
Mars (not this rendition of it) does seem from the composites I have been able to see, to reflect disparity in scarring, north to south. It is probably difficult to make a quantitative analysis of Mar's surface scars, because its atmosphere makes it subject to erosion of surface features. Can we compare Mar's angle of inclination to that of the moon to see whether the most affected "sides" of the two bodies match up with each other, and therefore both were scarred primarily by impacts coming from the same direction?
Upvote
0
In regards to a uniform inclination of affected planets of this storm, they will not be the same necessarily. This storm would have changed the inclination of perfectly created planets severely. Earth has an unstable inclination (it changes degrees over time), Mars, and the moon have changed inclinations as well. What we are seeing is a final result of the whole process of change. Not how they started. But I will happily look up data for you shortly on the things you requested. 
Upvote
0
So there is no way to test whether the impact craters on Mars correlate with the impact craters on the moon? Do you think there might be a way of dating the impact craters on the moon? If you could show that an especially large number of them were formed at the same time that most of the coal beds (for instance) on earth were formed, then you could show a link between meteorite impacts and the purported flood. That would be something. You would even have something if you could just show that most of the crater impacts on the moon, are the same age.
Working from known erosion rates, you might be able to estimate how long it would take all but one or two crater impact sites on earth to have disappeared... that might help?
Working from known erosion rates, you might be able to estimate how long it would take all but one or two crater impact sites on earth to have disappeared... that might help?
Upvote
0
Jerry, I'm impressed. No in fact, my jaw is dropping. I'm dead serious. Those are really cool ideas. I'll have to look into that too. I've not delved that far deep in the predictive aspect of the theory because quite frankly, it's next to impossible to find someone these days willing to even accept something as incredible as this as worthy of a rational well-thought discussion, let alone willing to go further and using scientific reasoning to explore a way to prove it right or wrong from that same patient rationale. Thanks for these suggestions. They are impressively insightful and wonderfully devised. I'll have to see about looking into the information to find the answers to these hypotheses.
These ideas in fact do help. Thanks Jerry.
Though in regards to your idea for dating craters on earth by erosion rates, I think they might be unreliable if these Earth craters were filled in with the very flood waters themselves which would have been an affect of their impact, and skewed also by other variables (like debris, sediments, elevation, and maybe more) that could skew the apparent age of one impact over another even though they both were formed at the same time. But it is a facinating idea in the right direction. There just has to be another way to approach this aspect if we want an answer.
Thanks for these suggestions. They are impressively insightful and wonderfully devised. I'll have to see about looking into the information to find the answers to these hypotheses.These ideas in fact do help. Thanks Jerry.
Though in regards to your idea for dating craters on earth by erosion rates, I think they might be unreliable if these Earth craters were filled in with the very flood waters themselves which would have been an affect of their impact, and skewed also by other variables (like debris, sediments, elevation, and maybe more) that could skew the apparent age of one impact over another even though they both were formed at the same time. But it is a facinating idea in the right direction. There just has to be another way to approach this aspect if we want an answer.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
One:
How much water did you use!?!?! The apple wasn't the core alone but the mantle too. The amount of water should be no thicker than the skin of the ballon(the earths crust) to get to even close to the proper water, rock ratio of the Earth.
Two:
How big do you think that the meteor was? Using even a small apple means you think it was at least the size of the moon! Think scale here, you do not put a full size sparkplug into a 1/30th model car and call it to scale.
Most of the reports I have read on the meteor state that it was about 5 to 7 miles actoss, not thousands. If it were as big as the moon and hit at any velocity it would do more than fracture the surface, it would likely vaporise it. The impact crator would be the size of the western hemisphere not the gulf of mexio (the crator you are talking about is much smaller than the actual gulf btw)
Upvote
0
Don't fret Lewis. We'll get to that in a second. And you could be right about one asteroid producing an impact. But according to a theory I've been putting together (though others seems to have idea too), there would have been multiple impacts, causing multiple "ruptures". I'm currently searching for a map of crater impacts on the earth which include sea impacts (though they could be next to impossible to detect because of the high erosion rate of the ocean floor) to determine if there are enough impacts around the world to produce the kind of fracturing that did make the current ocean basins today. I guess the theory would be there would be more impacts closer to the water line than mountain tops or deep inland, because impacts (at least from your bb experiement) would be the source of "punctures" and thus 'leaks' (to put it crudly) in the earth's crust over this ocean/steam layer.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Okay, that is a little better, it's not that I do not think your hypothesis is possible, but if you want to enter it on a fair footing and even get anyone to concider it you have to set up a solid base. A lot of creationists get mad because they put forward a half formed idea and do no preliminary work and expect a busy researcher to drop their work just because a new idea is here.
One warning, you must stay within the known laws of physics, and no "goddidit" cards if you expect science to even be able to look at it otherwise it is theology and not testable.
One warning, you must stay within the known laws of physics, and no "goddidit" cards if you expect science to even be able to look at it otherwise it is theology and not testable.
Upvote
0
Well, the only "Goddidit" cards that should ever be used, in my opinion, are two events: 1. the actual creation of the universe, and 2. the cursing of the universe when man sinned. These are the only two major "Goddidit" cards that the bible allows for Creation and the Flood. Everything else, I believe, is perfectly explainable - if you have enough information to gather an explanation. God may not tell us, but that doesn't mean there isn't an more details to a story to know.
I find premature "Goddidit" explanations to be rather lazy, and a discredit to honest Christian scientists and their research. Unless the bible explicity says God did something, I don't even bother with it. I look for the chain of causes and affects, and often the road leads to some interesting places. Like: if this explains the asteroid belt, then what caused the planet between Mars and Jupitor to fracture in the first place? It's a scenario I don't have an explanation for yet, but I refuse to use the trump card "God" to answer it because I believe God enjoys using his creation to do "natural" things - thus many things are in fact explainable - and should be, except where it contradicts especifically what the bible says God in fact did or did not do. This is the whole basis for honest "biblical" science. Some people from both camps are great at making themselves look like fools, but I believe true 'biblical'-minded science allows the bible the benefit of the doubt (being that if there is a God, then he would choose to preserve his word, and thus what we have as his word must be right and accurate); but this same science also refuses to give "God" trump cards to unexplainable events that could still very well have an explanation if there was given enough information - so that what is found in reality complements what is found in the bible, and vice versa.
But I personally believe, that God can lead a true seeker of truth to the right answers - which why I believe this search for a truth about the Flood and it's affects on what we see today has led me to pray and ask God for answers. I feel at times he doesn't tell me the whole story - almost like he doesn't want to give it all away because he might think it's more fun for me to learn and find out, rather than to be told the answer, but I do feel what I feel I've been "told" by God, that there are answers, and the answers are simple in design, but tough to figure out. Which is how I came up with the astroid-impact theory. It wasn't really my idea. I was even surprised later to find out other people had a similar theory on their own - and that the course of predicted events matched. But I could go on about the strange coincidences that have happened on my nice little journey to find out answers in a hobby I find facinating to delve into from time to time.
I find premature "Goddidit" explanations to be rather lazy, and a discredit to honest Christian scientists and their research. Unless the bible explicity says God did something, I don't even bother with it. I look for the chain of causes and affects, and often the road leads to some interesting places. Like: if this explains the asteroid belt, then what caused the planet between Mars and Jupitor to fracture in the first place? It's a scenario I don't have an explanation for yet, but I refuse to use the trump card "God" to answer it because I believe God enjoys using his creation to do "natural" things - thus many things are in fact explainable - and should be, except where it contradicts especifically what the bible says God in fact did or did not do. This is the whole basis for honest "biblical" science. Some people from both camps are great at making themselves look like fools, but I believe true 'biblical'-minded science allows the bible the benefit of the doubt (being that if there is a God, then he would choose to preserve his word, and thus what we have as his word must be right and accurate); but this same science also refuses to give "God" trump cards to unexplainable events that could still very well have an explanation if there was given enough information - so that what is found in reality complements what is found in the bible, and vice versa.
But I personally believe, that God can lead a true seeker of truth to the right answers - which why I believe this search for a truth about the Flood and it's affects on what we see today has led me to pray and ask God for answers. I feel at times he doesn't tell me the whole story - almost like he doesn't want to give it all away because he might think it's more fun for me to learn and find out, rather than to be told the answer, but I do feel what I feel I've been "told" by God, that there are answers, and the answers are simple in design, but tough to figure out. Which is how I came up with the astroid-impact theory. It wasn't really my idea. I was even surprised later to find out other people had a similar theory on their own - and that the course of predicted events matched. But I could go on about the strange coincidences that have happened on my nice little journey to find out answers in a hobby I find facinating to delve into from time to time.
Upvote
0
In my experience, quakers result in living rooms with a divider to separate men and women. But then these quakers didn't work the earth, and they weren't all that huge.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by npetreley
In my experience, quakers result in living rooms with a divider to separate men and women. But then these quakers didn't work the earth, and they weren't all that huge.
But their oatmeal can't be beat!
Upvote
0
