Fun with the Flood math.

[TrueCreation]

maybe they could use that on the oklo phenomenon too.

--Just maybe.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Jet Black]

--Just maybe.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

well when you manage to increase decay rates a million fold, do be sure as to tell the power companies, because you will have just solved the global power shortage and waste disposal problems.

 

[TrueCreation]

You're right, a back of envelope calculation indicates that 10[sup]28[/sup] J would only heat the asthenosphere about 100 degrees even if it all went into the asthenosphere . I guess you are going to have to heat it up some other way to get the viscosity low enough for runaway subduction to run. Back to magically acellerated radio active decay I guess.

--Accelerated decay may only need to be the initiation. But then again, it isn't even required for the initiation (even though I attribute the initiation of CPT to accelerated decay), let alone the sustenence of runaway subduction. Even still, I don't think you fully understand why runaway subduction would have occured in the first place. Why don't you explain that to me so I know we are on the right track.

Of course 10[sup]28[/sup] J is only a fraction of the heat that would be released by cooling the entire new lithosphere as I discuss on the other thread.

--I will address this thread soon.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Jet Black]

oh tell all the nuclear physicists as well, because everything they have been doing for the last 70 years is wrong.

 

[TrueCreation]

well when you manage to increase decay rates a million fold, do be sure as to tell the power companies, because you will have just solved the global power shortage and waste disposal problems.

--I don't suspect that the reason for its occurence was natural. Otherwise, the whole flood event would never need God in the first place.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--What would you expect to find? I recommend disregarding your bathtub when answering this question.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

One would think that you would at least be able to tell us where this unique event starts and stops in the geologic record. Where is the evidence showing the beginning and end of the flood? Why can't creationists identify exactly which sediments were deposited by this massive and unique worldwide event? Have you ever considered that reason that "flood geologists" can't tell which layers were deposited by the worldwide flood is that none of them were?

Of course if CPT had occured the evidence I would expect is an atmosphere of high pressure steam and no life on earth.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--I don't suspect that the reason for its occurence was natural. Otherwise, the whole flood event would never need God in the first place.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

So much for creation "science". You have once again proven that creation science is an oxymoron.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[TrueCreation]

oh tell all the nuclear physicists as well, because everything they have been doing for the last 70 years is wrong.

--Well i'm sorry to voilate the principle of uniformitarianism, but the way things progress today, just might not be the way they have in the past.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

BTW Glenn Morton is giving the worldwide flood a real pounding on Theologyweb these days.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=64

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jet Black]

--Well i'm sorry to voilate the principle of uniformitarianism, but the way things progress today, just might not be the way they have in the past.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

I will address a number of problems on that in the morning if you like.

 

[TrueCreation]

So much for creation "science". You have once again proven that creation science is an oxymoron.

--When did I ever fight in favour of "creation science"??? You either have science, or you don't. You have forgotten potential falsification as a fundamental requirement for science. Also, you have shown me that if God has ever interfered with the processes responsible for fashioning the earth as it is today, you will accept it on no grounds, even if it can be potentially falsified. If you continue in this mind-set, you have no place in discussing the veracity of any global flood as is given in Genesis, because it voilates this requirement in order for you to even consider it as possible.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

One would think that you would at least be able to tell us where this unique event starts and stops in the geologic record. Where is the evidence showing the beginning and end of the flood? Why can't creationists identify exactly which sediments were deposited by this massive and unique worldwide event? Have you ever considered that reason that "flood geologists" can't tell which layers were deposited by the worldwide flood is that none of them were?

--Yes I have. I find the evidence inconclusive as far as I have researched.

--Again to point out an article that explains this rather well:

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

Of course if CPT had occured the evidence I would expect is an atmosphere of high pressure steam and no life on earth.

--So what was the outcome of your discussion with Nethanial Morgan? Or even Dr. John Baumgardner? Have you ever talked with them?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Jet Black]

--I don't suspect that the reason for its occurence was natural. Otherwise, the whole flood event would never need God in the first place.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

goddidit just to fool us?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--When did I ever fight in favour of "creation science"??? You either have science, or you don't. You have forgotten potential falsification as a fundamental requirement for science. Also, you have shown me that if God has ever interfered with the processes responsible for fashioning the earth as it is today, you will accept it on no grounds, even if it can be potentially falsified. If you continue in this mind-set, you have no place in discussing the veracity of any global flood as is given in Genesis, because it voilates this requirement in order for you to even consider it as possible.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Once you bring in God you give up potential falsifications since you can always rely on "God did it" when cornered. Why do you bother with CPT? Why not just say God created the water for the flood and then poofed away the extra water when the flood was over? Of course the global flood was totally falsified as a scientific hypothesis long ago so there is no need to worry about any more potential falsfications and no one who was not religiously tied to it has considered the global possible for a long long time.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[TrueCreation]

goddidit just to fool us?

--Or goddidit to make it happen.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--Or goddidit to make it happen.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

 

[TrueCreation]

Once you bring in God you give up potential falsifications since you can always rely on "God did it" when cornered. Why do you bother with CPT? Why not just say God created the water for the flood and then poofed away the extra water when the flood was over? Of course the global flood was totally falsified as a scientific hypothesis long ago so there is no need to worry about any more potential falsfications and no one who was not religiously tied to it has considered the global possible for a long long time.

--I think you have been talking to far too many hovindites. Just because God did something, doesn't mean there is no longer potential falsification. For example. If God just so happened to make Venus disappear from space, we can refer to previous documentation and evidence of its existence, and then when we look and find that Venus is no longer there and just disappeared, that would suggest just maybe that God did it.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Why do you bother with CPT?

--Because, just maybe, it could be correct.

Why not just say God created the water for the flood and then poofed away the extra water when the flood was over?

--Because then I would have to ignore the geologic data.

Of course the global flood was totally falsified as a scientific hypothesis long ago so there is no need to worry about any more potential falsfications and no one who was not religiously tied to it has considered the global possible for a long long time.

--150 years ago, runaway subduction could never have been hypothesized either with what we know about mineral physics.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--Yes I have. I find the evidence inconclusive as far as I have researched.

--Again to point out an article that explains this rather well:

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

--So what was the outcome of your discussion with Nethanial Morgan? Or even Dr. John Baumgardner? Have you ever talked with them?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Ask them to come here if they want to debate the subject with us.

As to the article on the grossly misnamed True Origin archive I have read it before and it is very releaving. It as much as admits that flood geologists have no real way to tell which strata are flood deposits.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[TrueCreation]

Ask them to come here if they want to debate the subject with us.

--lol, um. no, they are busy doing research and i doubt they have time to sit on the computer and talk in forums, I won't have time to either in a couple years.

--Why don't you just give them a call, or e-mail them?

As to the article on the grossly misnamed True Origin archive I have read it before and it is very releaving. It as much as admits that flood geologists have no real way to tell which strata are flood deposits.

--I doubt it. Please support your statment.


Cheers,
-Chris Grose