Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
"Dynamite drop-in, Monty. That broadcast school has really paid off."
The top five results on Google Scholar when searching for "evolution plate tectonics":
| Implications of plate tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution of western North America. Plate tectonics and the evolution of the Alpine system. Plate tectonics & crustal evolution. Plate tectonics and the evolution of the British Isles: Thirty-fifth William Smith Lecture. Cenozoic plate tectonics and basin evolution in Indonesia. |
:think:
Those are pretty funny. :chuckle:
Last edited:
You got me thinking, and it turns out, scripture does not require the "Seas" to be interconnected.
Here's why:
There are (afaik) three words for the word "one" in Hebrew. "yachad" "bad" "echad"
The first two (and again, afaik; I'm no Hebrew scholar) indicate one of singularity. "one car" one house" "one mountain"
The third, "echad," means one of plural unity. It's the same word used every time when used in the phrase "one God" (because God is triune, so 'one of plural unity'), the two become "one flesh", the people spoke with "one voice," the LORD our God, the LORD is "one."
Ergo, "let the waters be gathered into 'one (ehad) place'" means (not just "could" mean) that there are multiple places being referred to as one.
Than again, I'll bet if you read those Google references they deal with science, with nary a word of The Hydroplate Theory. Why do you think that might be?
Darwinists want everything to be evolution, unless a YEC points out that they use evolution for everything. Then they pretend evolution should be restricted to biology.
At what point are they going to quit warbling and contribute something sensible?
At what point are they going to quit warbling and contribute something sensible?
And in all those Google Scholar references, any mention of The Hydroplate Theory? Bueller? Bueller?
Or a 6000 year old universe? Bueller again?
Or are they all just nonsense and Dr. Brown is the expert? Ferris, please.
Gee, we might get radioactive poisoning if we get struck by lightning?
Bummer.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think you'd be more likely to get dead hahaha
Derf
Well-known member
Hi Stripe,By the way, here is an image I made ages ago that describes what we believe. I've been meaning to improve it:
One day...
Here's my long-awaited sequence of creation images. I can't post attachments, so you will have to click on the links.
I went a little further than you did, as the verses about the firmament weren't completed until after the birds were created. In fact, here's the last verse in chapter 1 that talks about the "heavens":
[Gen 1:26 KJV] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This verse talks about the land, the sea, and the heavens. It is before the fall, and the birds are flying in the heavens. It is the same word that was given when God named the firmament "heavens", and it is contrasted with the other domains--land and sea. You can see that the KJV translated it "air". You can see that we now have a connection between the firmament, heaven, and the open firmament of heaven--the birds. And it's before the fall, so it can't be that heaven left earth before this verse.
Last edited:
Glad you went through the trouble of drawing your interpretation.
However...
Can I recommend that next time you use an actual image sharing site (like imgur.com) to upload your photos to, and then share the links from there here?
(Also, hit enter after each link, so that they're separated.)
Wow, cool. :up:
So our point of disagreement would be on image No. 3 (in both of our examples).
|
|
You have the water extending to beyond the visible universe and divided by outer space, whereas we have the water confined to Earth and divided by a granite crust. Is that a fair description of where we are at?
May I ask: Why have you kept the darkness as a prominent part of your diagrams?
PS. Change the "url" tags to "img" tags to display the images in the post.
Derf
Well-known member
Thanks for the tip. I thought I'd tried that, but since it appears to work, maybe I didn't. Apparently I left the dry land floating a little high for a couple of images.Wow, cool. :up:
So our point of disagreement would be on image No. 3 (in both of our examples).
You have the water extending to beyond the visible universe and divided by outer space, whereas we have the water confined to Earth and divided by a granite crust. Is that a fair description of where we are at?
May I ask: Why have you kept the darkness as a prominent part of your diagrams?
PS. Change the "url" tags to "img" tags to display the images in the post.
Yes, I think the third diagram is the point of departure between our models.
I kept the darkness mainly to allow the moon and stars a place in the diagrams. As I drew them, I felt some importance in showing where the sun and moon and stars fit in, especially since my firmament eventually contains the sun, moon, and stars. In the latter images, I began to rethink how the darkness and light must look when we get beyond earth and our solar system. Day and night don't mean the same thing. Light and darkness aren't separated the same way. The light/dark and day/night distinctions are unique to earth. Other places (planets or moons) will have other day/night distinctions, and the heavens light/dark distinctions are different still.
Your sequence doesn't touch on the "firmament of the heavens", but it should, imo, in the interest of completeness, and to keep your focus on the "firmament called Heaven" from blinding you to the rest of the sequence.
Aside:
Spoiler
Dear Cabinetmaker,
Forgive me for coming to this party really late, and trying to unmudddy water that has long since flowed under the bridge. As I just recently read thru this thread, occasionally I see science that is not being correctly presented. When the conversation has gone far past the mistake, if the mistake is not really crucial, then maybe it is best to let it go and make sure it does not get repeated. But in this case, I think there is still value in clarifying something you said in your critique of Walt Brown’s fountains of supercritical water. Specifically,
I don’t think so. I think you have a not uncommon, but incorrect idea of what is happening when water boils.
Basics first. A puddle of cold water turns to water vapor, it just takes a really long time. Warmer puddles evaporate more quickly. Hot puddles, but still well below 212 F don’t last long at all. Why?
When you heat water, you are mostly just making the water molecules vibrate more vigorously, but they ain’t going far. But to evaporate water – kicking water molecules completely away from those they were near, you are going to have to slam each molecule hard enough to break the electrostatic bonds each one had with its neighbors. Since water molecules are polar molecules, it’s kinda like a loose clump of magnetic balls. In the clump the balls can slide around pretty easily, since magnetic balls don’t much care where they are, as long as they are surrounded by other magnetic balls. But grab one of the balls on the surface and try and pull him off. He ain’t just about to leave his buddies, he’s attracted to them, not to the void you are trying to pull him into.
A water molecule on the surface leaves the liquid state and becomes vapor when the random vibrations of those below it just happen to bump it so hard that it gets booted up high enough that it is too far from its old buddies to feel much attraction for them anymore. In that hard hit it received from below it carried off almost all of the vigorous energy of motion that that the molecules below it hit it with. It becomes a vagabond, evicted from the group it was in, and the molecules that hit it have dang little energy left – they literally became much colder.
So the evicted vagabond gets carried along by air currents, and probably bumps into some other vagabond water molecules that also got evicted. These vagabonds are attracted to each other, and enough of them clump up to form a small sphere of water that is one of the droplets that form the water vapor cloud rising above your hot soup.
But what is happening at 212 F that makes it different – that causes bubbles to start rising? Well, its not just the surface water molecules that sometimes get banged really hard by their neighbors. Inside your pan of water, especially where a lot of heat is coming in (think right where it touches the stove burner) a fair number of the molecules are going to get hit hard enough that they start to force a void in the water – actually pushing back many of the nearby molecules that are a tad less energetic. That void happens when the “vapor pressure” – the combined pressure of these energetic molecules is equal to or above the atmospheric pressure plus the pressure of the water column above the void. Voila – a bubble, and it is not really a void, it is a localized place where a few tens of thousands of energetic molecules have literally pushed hard enough to force a spherical surface to form inside the liquid. Keep in mind that in the very act of being hit so hard by their former buddies, these energetic molecules used up a whole lot of the energy they got hit with. This spherical void, this bubble, has only tens of thousands of molecules in it, whereas the region near it has gazillions of molecules in that same volume. Big density difference, so the bubble rises. That is what we call boiling. Mostly just an indication that the vapor pressure at points inside the liquid is more than the ambient pressure at that depth.
Some highfalutin names with this – like latent heat of vaporization means how much energy is gonna have to be given to the water molecules to separate them from the liquid (which energy is therefore lost from the left-behind liquid). In an open pan, it takes a whole lot of energy just to turn 212 F water into 212 F vapor.
Common example of this is making dry ice – spray pressurized liquid carbon dioxide out of a nozzle – out comes CO2 gas and ice crystals of CO2 – forming the gas sucked the heat out of the rest of the CO2, freezing it. Compress the CO2 snow into blocks and sell it.
So, back to what you said. Pressurize water and heat it to 220 degrees and suddenly let off the pressure. Lots of hot water spraying around as lots of bubbles quickly form, but measure the remaining water temp a minute later – lots of water at 212 F.
End of rant.
Forgive me for coming to this party really late, and trying to unmudddy water that has long since flowed under the bridge. As I just recently read thru this thread, occasionally I see science that is not being correctly presented. When the conversation has gone far past the mistake, if the mistake is not really crucial, then maybe it is best to let it go and make sure it does not get repeated. But in this case, I think there is still value in clarifying something you said in your critique of Walt Brown’s fountains of supercritical water. Specifically,
I don’t think so. I think you have a not uncommon, but incorrect idea of what is happening when water boils.
Basics first. A puddle of cold water turns to water vapor, it just takes a really long time. Warmer puddles evaporate more quickly. Hot puddles, but still well below 212 F don’t last long at all. Why?
When you heat water, you are mostly just making the water molecules vibrate more vigorously, but they ain’t going far. But to evaporate water – kicking water molecules completely away from those they were near, you are going to have to slam each molecule hard enough to break the electrostatic bonds each one had with its neighbors. Since water molecules are polar molecules, it’s kinda like a loose clump of magnetic balls. In the clump the balls can slide around pretty easily, since magnetic balls don’t much care where they are, as long as they are surrounded by other magnetic balls. But grab one of the balls on the surface and try and pull him off. He ain’t just about to leave his buddies, he’s attracted to them, not to the void you are trying to pull him into.
A water molecule on the surface leaves the liquid state and becomes vapor when the random vibrations of those below it just happen to bump it so hard that it gets booted up high enough that it is too far from its old buddies to feel much attraction for them anymore. In that hard hit it received from below it carried off almost all of the vigorous energy of motion that that the molecules below it hit it with. It becomes a vagabond, evicted from the group it was in, and the molecules that hit it have dang little energy left – they literally became much colder.
So the evicted vagabond gets carried along by air currents, and probably bumps into some other vagabond water molecules that also got evicted. These vagabonds are attracted to each other, and enough of them clump up to form a small sphere of water that is one of the droplets that form the water vapor cloud rising above your hot soup.
But what is happening at 212 F that makes it different – that causes bubbles to start rising? Well, its not just the surface water molecules that sometimes get banged really hard by their neighbors. Inside your pan of water, especially where a lot of heat is coming in (think right where it touches the stove burner) a fair number of the molecules are going to get hit hard enough that they start to force a void in the water – actually pushing back many of the nearby molecules that are a tad less energetic. That void happens when the “vapor pressure” – the combined pressure of these energetic molecules is equal to or above the atmospheric pressure plus the pressure of the water column above the void. Voila – a bubble, and it is not really a void, it is a localized place where a few tens of thousands of energetic molecules have literally pushed hard enough to force a spherical surface to form inside the liquid. Keep in mind that in the very act of being hit so hard by their former buddies, these energetic molecules used up a whole lot of the energy they got hit with. This spherical void, this bubble, has only tens of thousands of molecules in it, whereas the region near it has gazillions of molecules in that same volume. Big density difference, so the bubble rises. That is what we call boiling. Mostly just an indication that the vapor pressure at points inside the liquid is more than the ambient pressure at that depth.
Some highfalutin names with this – like latent heat of vaporization means how much energy is gonna have to be given to the water molecules to separate them from the liquid (which energy is therefore lost from the left-behind liquid). In an open pan, it takes a whole lot of energy just to turn 212 F water into 212 F vapor.
Common example of this is making dry ice – spray pressurized liquid carbon dioxide out of a nozzle – out comes CO2 gas and ice crystals of CO2 – forming the gas sucked the heat out of the rest of the CO2, freezing it. Compress the CO2 snow into blocks and sell it.
So, back to what you said. Pressurize water and heat it to 220 degrees and suddenly let off the pressure. Lots of hot water spraying around as lots of bubbles quickly form, but measure the remaining water temp a minute later – lots of water at 212 F.
End of rant.
While accurate, this is nothing like the situation Walt is describing. In his theory, a large volume of water is at 1800F and enough pressure to keep it liquid. Temperature is a measure of energy so at 1800F, those water molecules have a whole bunch of energy just waiting to be released. I have posted a video showing a steam explosion when water flashes to steam.
Walt goes on to say that when cracks open up, that water is expanded through a throttling valve and cooled to -459F. The thermodynamics of this don't add up.