Space was Warm.

[kermit]

OK. I'll whip something up, likely in the next hour or two, and post it.

So you have a theory that is supposedly based on Biblical evidence yet you don't know without hours of work what that evidence is?

The whole is just getting deeper and deeper.

 

[TheBellman]

Anyone can see if they read the threads!! Because you can't give any proof of the so called science claimed same past assumption! All can see that. They have no choice! It is what it is.

No, NOBODY can 'see' it except you. Why do you think nobody ever supports your nonsense? All these Christans on these boards and not even one of them supports your wacky notions.

 

[rambot]

Nothing personal to the posters with the wherewithal to stick this out but I am SHOCKED that this thread got this much mileage.
The OP is completely mangled in both grammar and argument; it quotes a page with answers from intellectual and scientific community heavyweights such as "jlu" and "hawley"; the title of the thread doesn't coincide (apparently) with any supposition in his post.

Frankly, I am shocked you managed to pull ANYTHING of any use out of that thing. Like playing jackstraws during an earthquake..

 

[dad]

So you have a theory that is supposedly based on Biblical evidence yet you don't know without hours of work what that evidence is?

The whole is just getting deeper and deeper.

Well, I was about to put some bible stuff together, but looked at the old document I wrote, and it is still good. It pretty well covers it.

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip
(PDF)

 

[kermit]

Well, I was about to put some bible stuff together, but looked at the old document I wrote, and it is still good. It pretty well covers it.

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip
(PDF)

Why would I trust a zip file from some person I don't know?

It's a simple request. Please provide a list of verses that indicate your theory. I can look them up myself.

 

[dad]

Nothing personal to the posters with the wherewithal to stick this out but I am SHOCKED that this thread got this much mileage.
The OP is completely mangled in both grammar and argument; it quotes a page with answers from intellectual and scientific community heavyweights such as "jlu" and "hawley"; the title of the thread doesn't coincide (apparently) with any supposition in his post.

It is a popular misconception, I think that space is cold. That was why when addressing the possible different space of the past, I wanted to raise the example of water in space. It would eventually freeze, apparently. Not because space is cold but for other reasons of physics.
It depends on some factors, like how much water, and what was the starting temperature, I suppose. So, I guess no one here really knows that much about it. Fine.
I wonder if even is our same space, if a half a planet full of water getting into space would freeze all that fast? Interesting.
The OP here referenced ICC Tech, an educational site, I think, and ask a scientist! Are you on the right thread??
Try to line up your ducks, before dancing onto the stage to complain, about something in the other theatre will you??

 

[dad]

Why would I trust a zip file from some person I don't know?

It's a simple request. Please provide a list of verses that indicate your theory. I can look them up myself.

Take it or leave it! I mean, one minute, it is silly for me to take the time to compose an answer for you, you say. The next, it is silly to give a more complete already together answer? I just downloaded the file to have a look at it, no viruses in there that I saw.
If I get time sometime, I may sift out the verses in there for you. But these threads have a way of fading away before things happen.

 

[dad]

You've yet to provide a rational reason I should reject the converging lines of evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.55 billion years old. Just claiming it isn't doesn't actually constitute a rational argument.

In other words, to you, assuming the past was the same with no evidence is somehow rational. I prefer reality.

Actually, they are in science journals, text books, etc. Not too hard to find really. Your assurances the data is wrong without rational counter argument doesn't actaully account for much.

There is no such data of explaining the state of the past, and the past universe, who are you trying to fool here, exactly????

 

[Asimov]

You believe that there is no God that inspired and watched over things, we all have beliefs.

Yes, and mine is justified, yours isn't.

 

[dad]

Yes, and mine is justified, yours isn't.

Excuuuuuuse me?

 

[dad]

Why would I trust a zip file from some person I don't know?

It's a simple request. Please provide a list of verses that indicate your theory. I can look them up myself.

Here is a bit that relates to the warning that was given.

"
Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; Definition 1. to divide, split (Niphal) to be split, be divided (Piel)
to split, cleave to divide (The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon)

Since Peleg was born a hundred and one years after the flood, according to the bible, this leaves 19 years for which the ark to have been built, and the flood year to occur. If the building of the ark, then took, for example, 6 years, Peleg would have been about 12, or 13 years old at the time of this division, or split! From the warning of God that gave man 120 years, till the division, or split, still left plenty of time to have the flood year, and build the ark.

Another possible indication that this division may involve the spiritual and physical, comes in the verse immediately preceding the 120 year warning. In it, we see what many consider to be angels, or at least spiritual beings taking women for wives, because they were 'fair'. It certainly sounds like a time when the spiritual and physical world's were much closer together!

Gen 6: 1-3 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
(I was one of those that used to take this to mean it was to be 120 years to the flood. Now, I think it means till the split. You may have heard some suggest it took 120 years to build the ark. This would be where they got that idea)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is a popular misconception, I think that space is cold. That was why when addressing the possible different space of the past, I wanted to raise the example of water in space. It would eventually freeze, apparently. Not because space is cold but for other reasons of physics.

Water would not remain liquid in space, because there is no pressure in space. There is an ambient temperature of ~2.3K in space, but an object's freezing temperature is dependant on pressure; what freezes at <2.3K on Earth would freeze at (almost) any temperature in space.

It depends on some factors, like how much water, and what was the starting temperature, I suppose.

The amount of water only becomes significant if it is there is so much water that it condenses under it's own gravity, thereby generating heat. The starting temperature dictates how long the water takes to become ~2.3K, nothing more.

So, I guess no one here really knows that much about it. Fine.

I'd beg to differ. I used to think that it was trivially true that things freeze in space. Clearly, it's not so trivial to some.

I wonder if even is our same space, if a half a planet full of water getting into space would freeze all that fast? Interesting.

Assuming you mean a planet the size of Earth, then this body of water, if plonked in space, would rapidly freeze from the outside in. The core would remain liquid marginally longer than the outside, but not by much.

The OP here referenced ICC Tech, an educational site, I think, and ask a scientist! Are you on the right thread??
Try to line up your ducks, before dancing onto the stage to complain, about something in the other theatre will you??

His point is that this thread is pointless. You are trying to prove that the physical laws were different in the past, but, if they were different, then all of empiricism goes out the window, and you have no evidence to prove this change even took place.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Just to bring this whole three-ring circus back to the OP...

I just have to say, dad, that I'll give your "warm space" theory a closer look when:
1) It's more than just you that believes it, and
2) It appears, with all kinds of scientific evidence, in a peer-reviewed journal.

Untill then, you may be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling anyone else.

 

[dad]

Just to bring this whole three-ring circus back to the OP...

I just have to say, dad, that I'll give your "warm space" theory a closer look when:
1) It's more than just you that believes it, and
2) It appears, with all kinds of scientific evidence, in a peer-reviewed journal.

.

I don't have such a theory, I have a different past awareness, that may include a space that did not freeze the flood water, depending on evidence.
For example we had the water in the other thread on Mars that they said kind of suddenly appeared, and did things like carve out huge canyons. Now it is gone. There were also all kinds of craters there.
So, if in the different past, water could have gotten places in substancial quantities, without freezing at first, it helps explain what happened to the flood water.
Science journals are concerned with present conditions, and imagine the past was as well. That's all. I would no more want to get my ideas in their journals, that I would want to get then printed on toilet tissue.
I would simply like to point out that they are very limited, and know nothing of the past, just assume things with no evidence at all. At least as far as the state of creation, and the universe at the time.

Cheers.

 

[UniversalAxis]

The problem that you have in convincing other people of your theories is that your theories make no useful predictions.

Modern Geology, which contradicts your theory on many levels, makes many predictions. Moreover, their predictions are so accurate that people can make a great deal of money using their predictions to find precious metals, ores, oil, coal, natural gas, and other things.

In short, people bet that geology is right and win. Have you ever been able to do that with your theory? How much do you really trust it?

 

[dad]

Water would not remain liquid in space, because there is no pressure in space. There is an ambient temperature of ~2.3K in space, but an object's freezing temperature is dependant on pressure; what freezes at <2.3K on Earth would freeze at (almost) any temperature in space.


The amount of water only becomes significant if it is there is so much water that it condenses under it's own gravity, thereby generating heat. The starting temperature dictates how long the water takes to become ~2.3K, nothing more.

I think you are saying that you think that present space would not allow flood waters from earth to get to mars in water form? Or are you saying if there was a little ocean full, it probably would make it?

I'd beg to differ. I used to think that it was trivially true that things freeze in space. Clearly, it's not so trivial to some.

So, you used to think things froze in space, but it was not important. Now, you think they still would, but it is a little more important?

Assuming you mean a planet the size of Earth, then this body of water, if plonked in space, would rapidly freeze from the outside in. The core would remain liquid marginally longer than the outside, but not by much.

Well, the water used to cover the high mountains, which, some feel, was before the real high mountains came to be pushed up. So, say maybe cover the earth with water about 5000 feet high. That means that we take a lot of water away, to leave only the oceans full we now have, it woud seem.

His point is that this thread is pointless. You are trying to prove that the physical laws were different in the past, but, if they were different, then all of empiricism goes out the window, and you have no evidence to prove this change even took place.

Oh, I don't need to prove the change took place, any more than you need to prove it didn't! But he was saying the links were silly. I pointed out that 'ask a scientist', and the educational link I gave were not, seemingly what he was even talking about.
See, the evidence still exists, and needs explaining, and I think that a different past does a much better job, generally than your same past attempts.

If actual science, and physics, and evidence rule out water from earth getting say to Mars as water, then either the flood water went somewhere else, or space was different!
Since the universe was different, one would assume space was somewhat different, at least the laws at work there in the past.
I gave up long ago, having any hope anyone could defend a same past, so tapping expertise is just to rule out certain things here and there, more or less now.

 

[dad]

The problem that you have in convincing other people of your theories is that your theories make no useful predictions.

Geology can't predict the future. Besides, I see the geo column as mostly laid down pre flood, so all predictions are now mine there as well, almost.

Modern Geology, which contradicts your theory on many levels, makes many predictions. Moreover, their predictions are so accurate that people can make a great deal of money using their predictions to find precious metals, ores, oil, coal, natural gas, and other things.

They simply note a pattern in the layers, as to where these things should be found. Since I accept the geo column more or less, I expect the same patterns. Same with the fossil record. Your beef is with flood geology. Nothing that geology contradicts in my ideas involve any money making, or reality at all!

In short, people bet that geology is right and win. Have you ever been able to do that with your theory? How much do you really trust it?

Well, millions of Christians trust in a new heavens coming with their lives! The predictions of the bible walk all over anything geology could even dream of! Geoheatheniology can't predict earthquakes. All it managed to do was clue into pre flood layer patterns. Then they imagine tall tall tales as to how it came about.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Not only does your theory postulate a fundamentally different set of physical laws in the universe of the past, but it also predicts that those alternate laws of physics will be reinstated in the future.

If that is true, then how was that geo column laid down in a way which corresponds to our understanding of the current laws of physics. If your theory were true, and the geo-column were laid down pre-flood, and the "new physics" was established 100 years post-flood, then there should be a change in the way that sediment layers form today as opposed to "pre-split". We do not see such a change in the geological stratum or the ways in which it is formed. In short, deposition is as it was and has always been.

 

[Cannonflare]

"Tall tall tales" oh dad you are about to have your butt handed to ya.

 

[kermit]

Here is a bit that relates to the warning that was given.

"
Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; Definition 1. to divide, split (Niphal) to be split, be divided (Piel)
to split, cleave to divide (The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon)

Since Peleg was born a hundred and one years after the flood, according to the bible, this leaves 19 years for which the ark to have been built, and the flood year to occur. If the building of the ark, then took, for example, 6 years, Peleg would have been about 12, or 13 years old at the time of this division, or split! From the warning of God that gave man 120 years, till the division, or split, still left plenty of time to have the flood year, and build the ark.

Another possible indication that this division may involve the spiritual and physical, comes in the verse immediately preceding the 120 year warning. In it, we see what many consider to be angels, or at least spiritual beings taking women for wives, because they were 'fair'. It certainly sounds like a time when the spiritual and physical world's were much closer together!

Gen 6: 1-3 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
(I was one of those that used to take this to mean it was to be 120 years to the flood. Now, I think it means till the split. You may have heard some suggest it took 120 years to build the ark. This would be where they got that idea)

I asked for Bible evidence that indicates your theory. These passages do no such thing.