The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[Perfection]

The fact the stuck out most in my mind in meteorology school, was this: if you double the amount of volume in a stream, the force of the water increases by 64 times!

You wouldn't need 100,000 times the water to form the Grand Canyon.

A sixth power relatinoship between volume and force?! You're gonna need to prove that!

And how do you account for the other thins mentioned, in particular the shape and composition of the grand Canyon's walls

Have you studied the Lewis Overthrust in Montana?

I have a feeling that I'll be taking a look at it shortly...

 

[Quasar1011]

A sixth power relatinoship between volume and force?! You're gonna need to prove that!

Well the force of the wind increases at the cube of the windspeed. A 75 mph wind is not 3 times stronger than a 25 mph wind, it is 9 times stronger. Ask this of engineers who design buildings to withstand hurricanes.

Water is a lot thicker than air. Let me see if I can find a better website describing this. The only one I found so far was from the Manitoba Beef Review.

The engine that drives the train in this system is water and when it flows downhill it builds energy. The energy allows the water to do work. This work can be good, as in creating green zones, or bad, as in causing erosion.When dealing with flowing water in a stream or a small river, if the speed of the water doubles, the erosive force of the water increases 4 times and the amount of material it can carry away multiplies by 64 times.

The way I learned it, it wasn't the downhill speed of the water, but the volume.

 

[Perfection]

Speed is only in a proportional relationship if the area it runs through constant, which is not the case (streams will overflow). In fact do to the limited slope of the Colorado I'd imagine it would be insanely difficult to get the speeds you're talking about. Additionally, according to your own link the erosive force is only to the sqaure not to the 6th power as you allege.



And you still haven't addressed the other questions yet.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

The amount of material moved is also greatly dependant upon what type of material it is.

To compare the mudflows of Mt. St. Helens with the solid rock of the Grand Canyon isn't very realistic.

 

[Quasar1011]

Additionally, according to your own link the erosive force is only to the sqaure not to the 6th power as you allege.

Agreed. But it does mention the amount of material that can be carried away, is 64 times.

And you still haven't addressed the other questions yet.

One thing at a time, please.

 

[Perfection]

Agreed. But it does mention the amount of material that can be carried away, is 64 times.

Yeah, but that's not the same thing now is it.

And keep in mind that it's all speed dependant. How do you propose that the gently sloping Colorado river got so fast? We're not just talking about raging rapids here you seem to be proposing firehouse level stuff!

 

[Quasar1011]

The Grand Canyon formed over a very long period of time.

That's one theory, yes. I don't buy it.

Fossils on mountaintops is not evidence of a worldwide flood, only evidence of plate tectonics in action. Plates push against each other and mountain ranges rise.

We are in partial agreement here. You would say that the plate tectonics happened millions of years ago, and are still happening today. I would say that the worldwide flood set the tectonic plates in motion, and that tectonics are still happening today. So we agree about fossils and plate tectonics to some degree.

40 days underwater wouldn't be long enough to leave the millions of years of fossil record that are found on mountains anyway.

The flood didn't last 40 days, it lasted close to a year. And billions
of animals would have died in a worldwide flood, so its not surprising that millions of fossils are found in mountains.

EDIT - Quasar, May I ask for some scientific-based links to back up your statement "The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood." as I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.

I came to this conclusion in the 1980s, before there even was an internet. The only websites that I have bookmarked are creationist websites. Would you accept these as scientific?

 

[Perfection]

We are in partial agreement here. You would say that the plate tectonics happened millions of years ago, and are still happening today. I would say that the worldwide flood set the tectonic plates in motion, and that tectonics are still happening today. So we agree about fossils and plate tectonics to some degree.

How do you explain the rapid changes in pace?

The flood didn't last 40 days, it lasted close to a year. And billions
of animals would have died in a worldwide flood, so its not surprising that millions of fossils are found in mountains.

But how do you explain the distribution? Why do fossils form patterns in the order they are seen in the fossil record? Why are there rooted plant fossils above animal fossils? Why do fossils of animals never seen alive today exist?

 

[Quasar1011]

And keep in mind that it's all speed dependant.

. No it isn't. The water volume would affect the speed.

How do you propose that the gently sloping Colorado river got so fast? We're not just talking about raging rapids here you seem to be proposing firehouse level stuff!

I forget the name of the lake, maybe it was Bonneville. But this forerunner of the Great Salt Lake covered thousands of square miles in what is now Nevada and Utah. The plate tectonics set in action during the flood, caused the uplift in that region, and the lake formed. At some point after the flood, the lake breeched, draining through the Colorado River basin. Obsviously, yes, I am proposing something much more than raging rapids; it was as if most of the volume of Lake Michigan suddenly flowed to the sea!

The Bible mentions these plate tectonics, releasing vast amounts of subterranean water:

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Guys, I gotta go to bed. Have a great night!

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That's one theory, yes. I don't buy it.

There is nothing to 'buy'. The erosion of the Grand Canyon rock continues today and can be measured. Flash floods happen here in the desert all the time and only wash away the lose debris. To carve through solid rock takes a slow erosion over a very long period of time. There is not any kind scientific disagreement on the rate or how long the erosion has been happening. That's like saying you don't 'buy' the theory of gravity.

You would say that the plate tectonics happened millions of years ago, and are still happening today. I would say that the worldwide flood set the tectonic plates in motion, and that tectonics are still happening today. So we agree about fossils and plate tectonics to some degree.

I don't just say it, it is the scientifically agreed view based on the rate of plate movements and the distance they have traveled combined with the fossil record as a time-line. A surface flood would have no effect on movement of the earths plates and the plates have been moving for hundreds of millions of years now. Scientific link to support your statement?

The flood didn't last 40 days, it lasted close to a year. And billions
of animals would have died in a worldwide flood, so its not surprising that millions of fossils are found in mountains.

Why would aquatic animals die from a flood? And to repeat myself even a year wouldn't be long enough to leave the millions of years of fossil record that are found on mountains.

I came to this conclusion in the 1980s, before there even was an internet. The only websites that I have bookmarked are creationist websites. Would you accept these as scientific?

Frankly, no, as it wouldn't be unbiased. In order to accept a site as scientific it has to actually be scientific. How about some religion-neutral science based links? If what you say is based in science you should have no problem finding something on the internet of today to support what you claim without resorting to creationist/religious sites.

The water volume would affect the speed.

The speed would be totally dependent upon the distance the water falls. The oceans have huge volumes of water but tiny little waterfalls move faster.

The Bible mentions these plate tectonics, releasing vast amounts of subterranean water

I hate to have to repeat myself but quoting the bible is not science. Science link to back up this 'subterranean water' theory please?

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Guys, I gotta go to bed. Have a great night!

Another bible quote with nothing to do with a science-based conversation. No comment.

Have a great night too!

 

[Perfection]

. No it isn't. The water volume would affect the speed.

No, water volume would not effect it significantly. Water gets its speed by going downhill, more water going downhill by the same amount will have no effect on the speed whatsoever.

I forget the name of the lake, maybe it was Bonneville. But this forerunner of the Great Salt Lake covered thousands of square miles in what is now Nevada and Utah. The plate tectonics set in action during the flood, caused the uplift in that region, and the lake formed. At some point after the flood, the lake breeched, draining through the Colorado River basin. Obsviously, yes, I am proposing something much more than raging rapids; it was as if most of the volume of Lake Michigan suddenly flowed to the sea!

Well lake Bonneville drained into the Snake river, pretty much destroying your claims...

The Bible mentions these plate tectonics, releasing vast amounts of subterranean water:

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Guys, I gotta go to bed. Have a great night!

That doesn't seem like a good account tectonics really.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Quasar - Is a quote from a fellow believer O.K.?

@ sahkuhnder: no no no, I mean it is okay for God to smite everyone. And they weren't all vile sinners automatically going to hell. (in fact, I think the Flood, while it really happened, was much smaller in scale than described and not just to kill everyone) Some of them were good, and those that weren'tight not have repented anyways. And they had a better chance of being exposed to the True Faith after they were dead and there weren't as many competing beliefs.

Bold added by me.


Link, post #84

 

[carlosMM]

Alrighty, what is the title?

here goes - and I expect you to at least try and get it from a library.....

Fnechal, Tom (2002): Origin % early evolution of life. Oxford University Press, New York.

You can't be serious. The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood.

Uh, let's see - these fossils are IN SOLID ROCKS - how have these rocks been deposited? Limestones on top of mountains.... if there was a flood, where did all the tons of organic(!) material come from that the limestones consist of? I mean, you'd need trillions of tons of phyto- and zooplankton. How is that stuff supposed to get deposited in a matter of weeks?

The flood carved out the Grand Canyon. A lot of water in a little time, not a little water in a lot of time. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens in Washington State erupted. By 1982, a natural dam had blocked the Toutle River. An earthquake that year dislodged the dam, forming a new canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, within days! Multiply that volume of water by 40, and you could get the Grand Canyon in months or years, not millennia.

Well, I invite you to go to the Gran Canyon and measure the rate of erosion today. The rocks at the bottom are no harder than the stuff above, on average, so if ti was carved very wuickly, then spring floods (even the artificial ones) should take out a few hundred yards each year. FYI: they do not

How old does this canyon look?

irrelevant - just because certain sediments can be eroded qucikly due to a relatively low hardness doesn't mean much harder sediments can be eroded as quickly.
it is funny how people who obviously have never ever taken hammer to rock dare to come here and tell studied geologists how their field of work really works

 

[carlosMM]

The fact the stuck out most in my mind in meteorology school, was this: if you double the amount of volume in a stream, the force of the water increases by 64 times!

say wot?



this most certainly doesn't pertain to surface rivers

 

[carlosMM]

Well the force of the wind increases at the cube of the windspeed. A 75 mph wind is not 3 times stronger than a 25 mph wind, it is 9 times stronger. Ask this of engineers who design buildings to withstand hurricanes.

Ah, there we go - as expected: not surface river

FYI, and you should know this: air is compressible, wter hardly so

btw: how strong is wind at 1 mph? Is it 1/75 of the speed at 75 mph of (1/75) to the power of 6????

Water is a lot thicker than air. Let me see if I can find a better website describing this. The only one I found so far was from the Manitoba Beef Review.

u-hu.

finally a statement that is correct. water is thicker than air... yup. So?
it still cannot be compressed, thus re-expansion doesn't happen.

The way I learned it, it wasn't the downhill speed of the water, but the volume.

eh, yeah sure, theoretically possible - if it ran through at light speed. Otherwise you cannot get more volume / time through the canyon. So how do you speed the water up so badly?

 

[carlosMM]

TAnd billions
of animals would have died in a worldwide flood, so its not surprising that millions of fossils are found in mountains.

so where do the billions of fossils come from that are from species NOT living today?
How come that these fossils show a pregression throguh time of ancestor-descendant etc. from the lower to the upper layers of rocks? Did they die by the number and sank to the bottom by the number to fool us today?

 

[carlosMM]

. No it isn't. The water volume would affect the speed.

No, it hardly would - water is not compressible

I forget the name of the lake, maybe it was Bonneville. But this forerunner of the Great Salt Lake covered thousands of square miles in what is now Nevada and Utah. The plate tectonics set in action during the flood, caused the uplift in that region, and the lake formed. At some point after the flood, the lake breeched, draining through the Colorado River basin. Obsviously, yes, I am proposing something much more than raging rapids; it was as if most of the volume of Lake Michigan suddenly flowed to the sea!

so the water would flow as a broad, shallow surface flood, much like spilling a glass of water on a table - why should it cut a canyon in one specific place?

No Sir, this no work

The Bible mentions these plate tectonics, releasing vast amounts of subterranean water:

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

And where did it go?????

 

[The Last Conformist]

I have not heard this accounting of virtual particles before, can you give me the source?

Quasar is in the habit of giving bizarre accounts of QM. I'd not worry about it.

 

[Leifmk]

In conjunction with the effect of huge volumes of water there would have been huge localised rainfall around the area. This would make it seem that the world was slowly flooding. Noah did not build his ark in 3 minutes it took months and months, gathering every single animal would also take months and months.

But as I was saying, the Black Sea flooding (if it even happened as described) was something you could walk away from. Or crawl. Very very slowly. One or two hundred meters per day. While abrupt in geological terms, it was a gradual process that took at least a year, probably several years to complete.

If you want a real disastrous flood to inspire tales of "the entire world" drowning, you should look for places where an early agricultural civilization's entire known world was flat. For example, maybe, the Mesoptamian flood plains?

 

[The Last Conformist]

We are in partial agreement here. You would say that the plate tectonics happened millions of years ago, and are still happening today. I would say that the worldwide flood set the tectonic plates in motion, and that tectonics are still happening today. So we agree about fossils and plate tectonics to some degree.
The flood didn't last 40 days, it lasted close to a year. And billions
of animals would have died in a worldwide flood, so its not surprising that millions of fossils are found in mountains.

In Texas, there are diatomite formations that are over a kilometer thick. Are you telling me that the pre-flood oceans were so stuffed with diatoms that this could be deposited in a single year?

The Karoo formation in South Africa contains an estimated 800 billion terrestrial vertebrate fossils (none of which of presently extant species). That's 21 per acre of land on the entire planet. What percentage of the animals drowned in the Flood can have ended up in the Karoo? If 1%, we're talking 2100 per acre in the preflood world. (Don't tell me there was less water around pre-Flood; even if it were no oceans around, that's still ~700ish terrestrial vertebrates per acre.) Oh, and what made sure no species with a record in the Karoo made it thru to the present day?

I came to this conclusion in the 1980s, before there even was an internet. The only websites that I have bookmarked are creationist websites. Would you accept these as scientific?

Nittpick: There was an Internet in the '80s. It just wasn't as big and commonly accessed as today.