Creation "Museum" gets dinosaur fossil

This is the guy who runs the Foundation....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peroutka
In the United States presidential election, 2004, he was the Constitution Party candidate. His campaign theme was "God, Family, Republic" and he emphasized the Bible, the traditional family, and the need for constitutionally limited government. His running mate was independent Baptist minister Chuck Baldwin. He gained support from many paleoconservatives, and was also endorsed by the America First Party and Alaskan Independence Party.[1] Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of the South and supported by a group called "Southerners for Peroutka".[2] Peroutka accepted the endorsement from the League at their 2004 national convention. Radio host Alex Jones stated he would be voting for Peroutka.[3]

He appeared on the White Nationalist [4] radio show, The Political Cesspool to promote his campaign, describing it as a "Christian/Constitutionalist radio program" and "a great blessing to our cause".[5]

More info on the Foundation: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/MD/Elizabeth-Streb-Peroutka-Foundation-Inc.html

Steve Peroutka seems to be the founder of National Pro-Life Radio.

http://www.nationalproliferadio.net/Article.asp?id=1149871&spid=28408

The Elizabeth Streb Peroutka Foundation (named for his mother) supports a variety of pro-life causes.

Missed it by that much!

Does it have a bit in its mouth?

They should get some casts of people rapidly buried at Pompeii as further proof of the global flood. Nothing else could do it, you know.

Glen Davidson

We recently calculated here that if the flood waters came from “the canopy,” we would see energy deposition at the Earth’s surface to be something like 10^10 megatons of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and nights. All other flood scenarios produce similar rates of energy deposition.

I would like to know how that dinosaur stayed intact for even one second.

Will the real Dr. Snelling please stand up ?

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

The well-preserved condition of the Allosaurus is evidence that it died during a worldwide flood as described in the Bible’s Old Testament, Andrew Snelling, a geologist at the Creation Museum, said in the statement. Snelling said the fossil’s intact skeleton is proof of an extremely rapid burial, “which is a confirmation of the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago.”

Just out of curiosity -- Do Ham & Co. consider ALL fossils to be the result of the Flood, or will they allow that some could have been deposited between Creation and the Flood?

Or can they allow some to have been deposited after the Flood? After all, if a mineralized skeleton could have originated as recently as Noah's time, then why not a few centuries younger still?

And if they allow either of those possibilities, then how do "creation scientists" tell the difference?

At least it goes well with Ken Hamster's primitive skull.

Does anyone know the provenance of this allosaur skull? I wonder if it is possibly the one discussed at:
http://www.raisingthetruth.com/
Seems there was some dispute over the recovery of this specimen. There was an AIG connection.

Just Bob said: Just out of curiosity -- Do Ham & Co. consider ALL fossils to be the result of the Flood, or will they allow that some could have been deposited between Creation and the Flood? Or can they allow some to have been deposited after the Flood? After all, if a mineralized skeleton could have originated as recently as Noah's time, then why not a few centuries younger still? And if they allow either of those possibilities, then how do "creation scientists" tell the difference?

It is very likely that the allosaur specimen is the one mentioned at http://www.raisingthetruth.com based on this from the AIG article:

"One blessing in getting the allosaur was that the Creation Museum did not seek it out. Ten years ago, the Elizabeth Streb Peroutka Foundation bought the specimen and housed it. Thousands of hours later, the bones of this magnificent fossil are almost completely cleaned and restored thanks to the DeRosa family of Creation Expeditions."

If you spend time reading the reference website above, it is clear that shenanigans occurred, surprisingly among Christians. Maybe Ken could elaborate on this prize specimen's past.

Hey, Ham actually linked to you guys.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/10/19/who-is-dan-phelps/

Ken Ham from the previous link

Even with the credentialed scientists at the Creation Museum, and the high quality exhibits and specimens we possess, evolutionists like Dan Phelps will continue to “suppress the truth” as Romans 1 tells us, unless their hearts are opened to the truth of God’s Word. We need to pray that the light of God’s eternal truth will shine on Dan Phelps’ heart.

Total wanker. What that guy needs is to look at his own organization's statement of faith where they promise to discard as invalid any evidence, real or imagined, that goes against their bible.

They want to complain about others "suppressing the truth"? They'd better stop doing so themselves. That statement of faith of theirs is the opposite of the scientific method, where one is guided by the facts, not discarding them in favor of what one wants to believe.

Since that statement of faith is a requirement for employment there, it doesn't matter one whit if their staff is "credentialed" or not. Once they agree to work there, they have promised to toe the ideological line instead of doing actual science.

I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Charley Horse said: This is the guy who runs the Foundation....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peroutka In the United States presidential election, 2004, he was the Constitution Party candidate. His campaign theme was "God, Family, Republic" and he emphasized the Bible, the traditional family, and the need for constitutionally limited government. His running mate was independent Baptist minister Chuck Baldwin. He gained support from many paleoconservatives, and was also endorsed by the America First Party and Alaskan Independence Party.[1] Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of the South and supported by a group called "Southerners for Peroutka".[2] Peroutka accepted the endorsement from the League at their 2004 national convention. Radio host Alex Jones stated he would be voting for Peroutka.[3] He appeared on the White Nationalist [4] radio show, The Political Cesspool to promote his campaign, describing it as a "Christian/Constitutionalist radio program" and "a great blessing to our cause".[5] More info on the Foundation: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/MD/Elizabeth-Streb-Peroutka-Foundation-Inc.html

Charley Horse said: This is the guy who runs the Foundation....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peroutka In the United States presidential election, 2004, he was the Constitution Party candidate. His campaign theme was "God, Family, Republic" and he emphasized the Bible, the traditional family, and the need for constitutionally limited government. His running mate was independent Baptist minister Chuck Baldwin. He gained support from many paleoconservatives, and was also endorsed by the America First Party and Alaskan Independence Party.[1] Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of the South and supported by a group called "Southerners for Peroutka".[2] Peroutka accepted the endorsement from the League at their 2004 national convention. Radio host Alex Jones stated he would be voting for Peroutka.[3] He appeared on the White Nationalist [4] radio show, The Political Cesspool to promote his campaign, describing it as a "Christian/Constitutionalist radio program" and "a great blessing to our cause".[5] More info on the Foundation: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/MD/Elizabeth-Streb-Peroutka-Foundation-Inc.html

Just Bob said:

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

I can. How? Please write your ideas to prove it.

unambiguously stated that, "there is one race and that's the human race". More recently on his radio show, also published on his website theamericanview.com, dated September 9, 2013, he unequivocally states, "all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful."

Peroutka: "...elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful."

Notice his list of immoralities does NOT include forced separation or segregation.

Andy White said:

Just Bob said:

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

I can [confirm or deny the flood].

How? Please write your ideas to prove it.

Andy White said: How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Matt Young said: The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the League of the South as a hate group. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Peroutka has praised them, but to his credit

unambiguously stated that, "there is one race and that's the human race".

The [League of the South]’s veneer of professorial respectability has been pierced numerous times, but perhaps never so dramatically as in the case of Michael Tubbs, who in the early 2000s was a leading league activist in Florida. In 2004, the [Southern Poverty Law Center] Report revealed that Tubbs was actually a convicted “Aryan” terrorist, a man who while in the military had robbed fellow soldiers at gunpoint of their weapons. (During one such theft, he and an accomplice had reportedly shouted, “This is for the KKK!”) When he was arrested, officials found several arms and explosives caches along with lists of targets that included newspapers, television stations and businesses owned by Jews and blacks. When these embarrassing facts were revealed, Hill and other league leaders allowed Tubbs to stay on, saying he’d paid his debt to society. [Southern Poverty Law Center on the League of the South]

Peroutka was a featured speaker at the League of the South’s national conference this past July [of 2012], as he was in 2004, 2008, and 2010.... League of the South President Michael Hill has written that white people possess a “God-ordained superiority” and that African Americans “have never created anything approximating a civilization.” Its Florida chapter chairman, Michael Tubbs, is, according to the SPLC, a convicted “Aryan” terrorist who amassed a stockpile of weapons and explosives along with a list of targets including businesses owned by Jews and blacks. Peroutka appeared along with Hill and Tubbs in front of Confederate flags at the League of the South conference, said that he was grateful for the organization’s endorsement of his fringe 2004 presidential campaign and remarked that “If this be hate, let's make the most of it.” In 2004, he wrote on his blog that “I am proud to be a member of the League of the South. I look forward to receiving the support … from guys with Confederate flags in their trucks.” He has also appeared on a white supremacist radio show called The Political Cesspool. The Montgomery Advertiser reported that one of the bedrock principles of the show Peroutka appeared on is the need to “grow the percentages of Whites in the world relative to other races.” [Top Anti-Marriage Donor in Maryland is Active in White Supremacist, Secessionist Causes. Dan Rafter. Human Rights Campaign, December 6, 2012.]

Historian John Patrick Daly wrote: [p. 84]: Evangelicals always pledged their allegiance to belief in the unity of races. ‘There is no such thing as gradations from brute natures to that of human: for man stands alone being the image of God,’ pronounced Josiah Priest in his Bible Defense of Slavery. Priest’s typical statement was an aside in his popular collection of an unbroken litany of biblical and psycho-sexual attacks on blacks… Priest, a former harness maker from New York, was sadly representative of the evangelical’s tendency to depart from many of the racist arguments from creation or permanent curses, but to recast brutal white supremacy in the framework of a competitive struggle to build moral character. [p. 85]: Although some proslavery spokesmen used this ancient biblical tradition [Curse of Ham] to argue that all blacks were forever relegated by God to the status of slaves, most evangelical spokesmen stressed that Ham (and his current descendants) ‘brought himself into his sad dilemma.’ Sweeping racial dichotomies no longer stressed the ascendance of civilized human over heathen beast, but of moral victors over vanquished—-not in competition with each other but, as ministers were forever sermonizing, “with themselves.” [Virginia Reverend] Thornton Stringfellow provided the standard formulation of character-based racism and competitive proslavery: ‘The slave race is placed upon a common level with all other competitors for the rewards of merit; but as the slaves are inferior in the qualities which give success among competitors…[they find] poverty or die out by inches degraded by vice and crime, unpitied by honest and virtuous men…’ [p. 86]: …Proslavery Presbyterian Nathan Rice defined Christ’s mission as ‘declaring a war of extermination against all the guilty passions of this earth.’ ‘Extermination’ was a word that invariably appeared in moral defenses of slavery, especially in reference to free blacks, ‘prematurely’ emancipated slaves, and Indians. As in other aspects of southern proslavery, Thomas R. Dew led the way in citing the travels of “Mungo Park” and describing how the ‘decree of Providence had gone forth,’ promising ‘total extermination’ of those with weak character. Dew, like evangelical ministers, concluded that slavery was ‘humane’ because ‘there is nothing but slavery [to] eradicate the character of improvidence’ that would otherwise bring extermination. The vision of extermination offered by evangelicals was inevitably providential—- never a plan or action executed by the righteous but a natural self-operating outcome of God’s law and an individual’s own failings. The development of force of character produced material benefits; ‘inferiority of character’ issued in punishment. Dr. Matthew Estes, and admirer of Dew, described how ‘ultimate extinction’ of those who did not make themselves ‘fit for freedom’ was a result of the progressive and utilitarian nature of Providence: ‘Ultimate extinction… why should we lament such an event? …The extinction of a tribe, or even a whole people, is not more to be lamented than the extinction of one generation to make room for another. God cares nothing for the pride of man: he executes his purposes regardless of the whims and caprices of men… [and] does that which promotes the highest good of universal humanity.’ Much of this language in southern proslavery applied to free blacks and Africans; slavery was not considered an instrument of extinction. Estes, for example, qualified his prediction about racial extermination by noting that ‘the same race in the United States has made some advance in civilization’: ‘Protestant Christians constitute the only portion of the globe in a progressive state… The destiny of all the inferior grades of mankind with the exception probably of the negroes is extinction—- and extinction, too, much earlier than most people imagine.’…” [John Patrick Daly. When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Slavery and the Causes of the Civil War.]

Michael Hill and the LOS now deny being racist– oh yeah? Here’s a racist creationist speech from Michael Hill cited at the racist creationist “Kinist” blog Spirit, Water, Blood. “Kinism” is their BC (Biblically Correct) term for racism– they say “racism” is a pejorative, so they call themselves “Kinists” instead (you know, like the way ID proponents say “creationism” is a pejorative.) Kinists are followers of the fascist, racist, pro-eugenics, Holocaust-denying creationist Rousas Rushdoony.

Matt Young said: The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the League of the South as a hate group. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Peroutka has praised them, but to his credit

unambiguously stated that, "there is one race and that's the human race". More recently on his radio show, also published on his website theamericanview.com, dated September 9, 2013, he unequivocally states, "all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful."

Still, it will be disturbing if creationists like Mr. Ham inch toward the racist right fringe.

unambiguously stated that, “there is one race and that’s the human race”. More recently on his radio show, also published on his website theamericanview.com, dated September 9, 2013, he unequivocally states, “all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful.”

.... at one time he (or his Doppelgänger) apparently published real papers in real journals.

Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of the South...

Peroutka: “all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful.”

Notice that his "shameful immoralities" do not include segregation. You know, keepin' with our own kin, and keepin' their kin away. Very far away.

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.

How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Andy White said: How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Robert Byers said: The whole dino assemblage preaches sudden and common death from drowning and sediment movement. All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood. its a good creationist point(s).

Robert Byers said: All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood. its a good creationist point(s).

How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood. its a good creationist point(s).

It only rained for 40 days. At the end of 40 days, the highest mountain was under water. This meant that the water was rising at an average rate of 30 feet per hour, or a foot every two minutes over the entire earth. Even the largest dinosaur was going to be drowned in the first 30 minutes of the flood. All the rest of the 39 days was just adding insult to injury, so to speak. Perhaps what you meant to say was, "the first few minutes of the biblical flood," not the first few weeks. Think about how fast water flows down hill to rivers, especially in places like the Great Plains, or most of the Fertile Crescent. It takes time for water to travel horizontal distances, especially over relatively flat ground. This wasn't something like your typical flash flood. For the waters to rise a foot every two minutes, the water simply wouldn't have time to flow anywhere, or carve or gouge anything. The water would be rising at this rate over the entire surface of the planet. There would be no "down hill" for the water to flow to. The water from the top of the hill would be running into all the water that was already at the bottom of the hill. After the first two or three hours, the water wouldn't be going anywhere or doing anything except getting deeper.

It would appear that Europa wasn't the only one who took a ride on a load of bull.

apokryltaros said:

Andy White said: I agree that acquisition of a dinosaur fossil gives his “museum” credibility and makes it a real museum.

No, Ken Ham is only presenting the Allosaurus skeleton as a trophy, and presents no explanation or reasoning on why it should be considered evidence of a magical flood that magically occurred 4,000 years ago.

How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

Except that a global flood would leave behind a whole host of evidence to mark its presence, i.e., distinctive geological formations, huge, jumbled collections of corpses and flood debris mixed together and sorted via hydrodynamics and not via geological appearance, no fossils as we know them, the location of "Mount Ararat," and the Ark, and evidence of all terrestrial life on Earth originating from the Ark, as well as having suffered from a 4,000 year old genetic bottleneck. But none of those pieces of important evidence have ever been seen. Ergo, the magic flood that the Bible said occurred, which Young Earth Creationists claim was 4,000 years ago, never actually happened in real life.

The museum said in a written statement Friday that the Allosaurus probably stood about 10 feet tall and 30 feet long, and was a meat-eater. The skeleton, nicknamed "Ebenezer," includes a skull with 53 teeth and will go on display in an exhibit next year.

Warren Throckmorton has taken some time off from exposing David Barton to post quite a few entries on the LOS.

Marilyn said: If God hadn't remembered Noah how long do you think it would have been before we became like Europa

Ron Okimoto said: How is the AIG going to explain the following quote when they claim that all the dinos were vegetarians before the fall. It isn't just the flood that they have to worry about explaining. The creation museum actually states in their exhibits that dinos like T. rex were vegetarians. It was sort of hard to believe when you looked at the banana sized killer teeth. There seems to have been a lot of evolution after the fall as well as after the flood.

Hi Marilyn.

Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions?

Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

Robert Byers said: By the way its a great point that fossilizing creatures requires a rare recipe. tHe great heaps of dinos entombed , and not from old age death, makes unlikely the slow occasional events invoked to explain to people as to why there are dino bone beds and so many anyways. there are no buffalos fossilized from the plains since columbus landed. The whole dino assemblage preaches sudden and common death from drowning and sediment movement. All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood. its a good creationist point(s).

tHe great heaps of men, women and children entombed , and not from old age death, makes unlikely the slow occasional events invoked to explain to people as to why there are human bone beds and so many anyways. there are no buffalos fossilized from the plains since columbus landed. The whole modern homo sapien assemblage preaches sudden and common death from drowning and sediment movement. All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood.

Please do not let the Byers troll seduce you into responding; you only encourage it. I know the temptation is real, but please resist. Remember what my father told me: If you argue with a troll, pretty soon there may be 2 trolls having an argument. (OK, he said "jackass," but the principle is the same.)

apokryltaros said: Except that a global flood would leave behind a whole host of evidence to mark its presence, i.e., distinctive geological formations, huge, jumbled collections of corpses and flood debris mixed together and sorted via hydrodynamics and not via geological appearance, no fossils as we know them, the location of "Mount Ararat," and the Ark, and evidence of all terrestrial life on Earth originating from the Ark, as well as having suffered from a 4,000 year old genetic bottleneck. But none of those pieces of important evidence have ever been seen. Ergo, the magic flood that the Bible said occurred, which Young Earth Creationists claim was 4,000 years ago, never actually happened in real life.

Mike Elzinga said:

Andy White said: How can something be sure about the global catastrophe of a flood a few thousand years ago? No one can confirm or deny it.

How would 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT going off for every second over every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and 40 nights NOT leave any evidence? If all that water came down all at once in the form of a huge ball of ice from outer space, it would be a sphere with a diameter of 1300 miles. No matter what scenario you use to explain the flood, the energy involved would fry everything on the surface of the planet. There would be nothing left; not even the ark. All these calculations require only a familiarity with high school level physics.

apokryltaros said: the location of "Mount Ararat,"

Andy, the point is that any realistic flooding as described in Genesis would release the same amount of energy as detonating a 10 Megaton bomb over every square meter of the Earth's surface every second. Whether that energy comes from a bomb or comes from rain makes little difference, the effect is the same. There is no way such a flood could happen and leave behind the world we have today. Thermodynamics forbids it.

Tenncrain said: Hi Marilyn. Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions? Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

Matt Young said: Please do not let the Byers troll seduce you into responding; you only encourage it.

In particular, that we recognize things like T. rex teeth as being designed for carnivory. (Or the famous “bombardier beetle” defense mechanism for protection from predators. Or eyes for detecting either predators or prey, depending on one’s place in the food chain.)

Andy White said: Yes, you are right and i accept your explanations about the amount of released energy in your examples but i didn't get the exact relationship between flood and TNT. Of course, TNT doesn't leave any evidence but we can not relate anything without evidence to TNT!! And about being familiar with high school level physics, i should say that i am totally familiar with it as i almost finishing my master in micro electronics.

Hambone had to add the Allosaurus since last year's exhibit on fire breathing dragons didn't work out as well as planned.

stevaroni said: As I'm sure our readers from Colorado and Louisiana are ready to attest, extremely violent flooding, capable of dragging away and burying creatures the size of a car do happen, since some of those readers are, in fact, still looking for their cars.

Thermodynamics forbids it.

Sure she is. She just isn't allowed to leave any evidence of it behind, even if the stated purpose is to teach people a lesson! Hell, she couldn't even leave any genetic evidence behind because obviously the only people who are stupid enough to believe it couldn't understand it.

Jimbo @LoneProwler @MichaelHill51 @KraftyWurker Do you consider niggers "Southerners"?If so, how are you going to get them to go along with secession? Michael Hill @MichaelHill51 @LoneProwler @KraftyWurker To us, "Southerners" are of European descent. They can either go along with it, fight against it, or get out. [Throckmorton's blog, Oct. 21, 2013, http://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/league-of-the-souths-president-to-blacks-go-along-fight-or-get-out]

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it.

phhht said:

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it.

That is exactly the problem, Stumps. Your gods cannot supersede natural laws. They have no effect on reality at all. They can't do anything.

TomS said:

Ron Okimoto said: How is the AIG going to explain the following quote when they claim that all the dinos were vegetarians before the fall. It isn't just the flood that they have to worry about explaining. The creation museum actually states in their exhibits that dinos like T. rex were vegetarians. It was sort of hard to believe when you looked at the banana sized killer teeth. There seems to have been a lot of evolution after the fall as well as after the flood.

The argument from design assumes that we are able to recognize design when we see it. In particular, that we recognize things like T. rex teeth as being designed for carnivory. (Or the famous "bombardier beetle" defense mechanism for protection from predators. Or eyes for detecting either predators or prey, depending on one's place in the food chain.)

Well they claim that Allosaurus was a meat eater, but how could it eat meat before there was death in the world. It should spawn a new theology of precognition omphalos. God created animals as if they were designed to eat meat before there was meat to eat.

It's not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we've even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/15/t-rex-tooth-embedded-prey-dinosaur

It’s not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we’ve even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs?

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: By the way its a great point that fossilizing creatures requires a rare recipe. tHe great heaps of dinos entombed , and not from old age death, makes unlikely the slow occasional events invoked to explain to people as to why there are dino bone beds and so many anyways. there are no buffalos fossilized from the plains since columbus landed. The whole dino assemblage preaches sudden and common death from drowning and sediment movement. All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood. its a good creationist point(s).

However...

tHe great heaps of men, women and children entombed , and not from old age death, makes unlikely the slow occasional events invoked to explain to people as to why there are human bone beds and so many anyways. there are no buffalos fossilized from the plains since columbus landed. The whole modern homo sapien assemblage preaches sudden and common death from drowning and sediment movement. All fossils below the k-t line are from the first few weeks of the biblical flood.

...would be better creationist point(s).

diogeneslamp0 said: More on the topic of how the donor of the Allosaurus fossil is a leader of the racist League of the South... Peroutka is a board member of the LOS and the founder of the Reconstructionist Institute on the Constitution, which seeks to apply Rushdoony's Reconstructionism, while calling it Constitutional "Originalism." Prof. Warren Throckmorton has been following the LOS and the IOTC. Here is just today's post, a back-and-forth on Twitter between two LOS members, "Jimbo" and President Michael Hill, in which "Jimbo" uses the N-word and Hill makes clear what the word "Southerner" really means in LOS-speak.

Jimbo @LoneProwler @MichaelHill51 @KraftyWurker Do you consider niggers "Southerners"?If so, how are you going to get them to go along with secession? Michael Hill @MichaelHill51 @LoneProwler @KraftyWurker To us, "Southerners" are of European descent. They can either go along with it, fight against it, or get out. [Throckmorton's blog, Oct. 21, 2013, http://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/league-of-the-souths-president-to-blacks-go-along-fight-or-get-out]

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: Hi Marilyn. Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions? Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

I appreciate this recommendation not too difficult to read and is understandable, written by someone who found a significant fossil and in this resent time, bringing new leads to light. So not too of topic.

Andy White said: Yes, you are right and i accept your explanations about the amount of released energy in your examples but i didn't get the exact relationship between flood and TNT. Of course,

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

Mike Elzinga said:

Andy White said: Yes, you are right and i accept your explanations about the amount of released energy in your examples but i didn't get the exact relationship between flood and TNT. Of course, TNT doesn't leave any evidence but we can not relate anything without evidence to TNT!! And about being familiar with high school level physics, i should say that i am totally familiar with it as i almost finishing my master in micro electronics.

In carrying on several different conversations over the past few weeks on two different websites (one of which was here), I mixed up two calculations that I usually keep at my fingertips. A brain fart on my part. As I indicated on that link, the rate of energy deposition during the flood would have been about 2 x 10⁸ watts per square meter or about 400 megatons of TNT every second for every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and nights. The diameter of the ball of ice was correct at 1300 miles. The conclusion remains the same; nothing survives. The 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT was for a different discussion we were having about the tornados-in-a-junkyard. If the junkyard parts were of kilogram-sized masses and had the same charge-to-mass ratios as protons and electrons, then their interaction energies would be on the order of 10²⁶ joules, or 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. The kinetic energy of a kilogram mass traveling at the maximum wind speed of an EF5 tornado is only about 10⁴ joules. Converting joules to megatons of TNT is a little more informative for people who don’t have a feeling for joules. Since these two discussions seem to be favorite topics that are brought up at regular intervals by ID/creationists, I thought it would be useful to keep reminding them of what they don't know and don't want to know; namely, high school level science. Hence my own repetition of topics that have become excruciatingly boring over a period of nearly fifty years.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: Since there's no place where the water could have run to wouldn't one have to assume the same amount of energy again to evaporate all the water? And where has all the steam gone?

DavidK said: Too, does this mean Ham will request even more state funds for his faultering Ark/museum project?

stevaroni said: The basic idea is that water has mass. The amount of water needed to flood the Earth to the required depths (even accepting the creationist fudge about "mini mountains" pre-flood) is calculable, and enormous. That amount of water "falling from the windows of Heaven" down to the surface of the Earth looses a known amount of potential energy, and that energy is converted to kinetic energy and eventually, to heat, and this energy is readily calculable.

stevaroni said: So enormous that the only thing you can compare it to is nuclear weapons, and the standard unit of measurement for nuclear explosions is pretty much the kiloton of TNT. Just for reference, a kiloton of TNT liberates about 4.184×10^6 joules, and about 18 of them were enough to remove Hiroshima from the map.

Moron for Jesus said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

Tenncrain said:

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: Hi Marilyn. Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions? Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

I appreciate this recommendation not too difficult to read and is understandable, written by someone who found a significant fossil and in this resent time, bringing new leads to light. So not too of topic.

Then you have no issue about being distantly related to fish? At least you might now have a grasp about how the predictions of evolutionary theory were used to find Tiktaalik. Maybe perhaps an idea why humans hiccup. :) You might appreciate this Ken Miller lecture (especially from about the 8 minute 50 second mark where Miller discusses Shubin's quest to find an intermediate between fish and amphibian, later found as Tiktaalik). Same with this Ken Miller talk (Shubin discussed from about the 27 minute mark). Also, you might consider Ken Miller's own popular level books Finding Darwin's God and Only A Theory. Miller has not made a secret of his religious beliefs, yet he is also one of the strongest advocates of evolutionary theory.

AltairIV said: It's not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we've even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/15/t-rex-tooth-embedded-prey-dinosaur

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

Karen S. said:

It’s not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we’ve even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs?

The designer just did it that way

FL said: In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

Are there not also studies of coproliths - fossilized feces - which contain bones, which show that some animals ate other animals? Also, I understand, there are fossils of animals captured in the act of eating another animal.

TomS said:

AltairIV said: It's not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we've even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/15/t-rex-tooth-embedded-prey-dinosaur

Are there not also studies of coproliths - fossilized feces - which contain bones, which show that some animals ate other animals? Also, I understand, there are fossils of animals captured in the act of eating another animal.

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said:

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: Hi Marilyn. Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions? Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

I appreciate this recommendation not too difficult to read and is understandable, written by someone who found a significant fossil and in this resent time, bringing new leads to light. So not too of topic.

Then you have no issue about being distantly related to fish? At least you might now have a grasp about how the predictions of evolutionary theory were used to find Tiktaalik. Maybe perhaps an idea why humans hiccup. :) You might appreciate this Ken Miller lecture (especially from about the 8 minute 50 second mark where Miller discusses Shubin's quest to find an intermediate between fish and amphibian, later found as Tiktaalik). Same with this Ken Miller talk (Shubin discussed from about the 27 minute mark). Also, you might consider Ken Miller's own popular level books Finding Darwin's God and Only A Theory. Miller has not made a secret of his religious beliefs, yet he is also one of the strongest advocates of evolutionary theory.

It's possible I'm related to everything that has DNA and flesh and blood but at the present time I consider myself a human and try to act like one and also believe in the creator and that he wants the best for us within the environment we're in. I also am amazed at how people have found evidence or what resembles evidence of the history of the planet and it's progression. I also think we should utilize it all to a purpose and if that purpose is outlined in ancient scriptures with examples of eras to guide as to what works and what doesn't I wouldn't just dismiss it because I wasn't there to see it. If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven't seen one, then you don't get the object, if you don't like the object when it's built then you can modify hopefully to the better, but concider why it was made in the way it was intended likable or not. There has to be an element of what is plausible, and what isn't well then you have to consider why the story was put across in such a way and that there may be a moral behind it.

for the benefit of any lurkers out there:
the problem with all of ID/Creationism (and that way of thinking) relative to science is the acceptance of the miraculous- literally ANYTHING is possible and NOTHING is impossible if you allow for "then a miracle happened" as a step in a scientific inquiry. What evidence supports/rules out a miracle - nothing and everything - Magic flood waters don't need to follow the laws of physics, because they are Magic. Magic boats that can magically support hundreds or thousands of animals for extended periods of time and magically keep them fed, breathing, healthy etc. don't have to have any rational explanations because; MAGIC! Anyone can believe anything they want in their personal religious lives but if you want an explanation of something to be scientific it has to be supported by evidence, and Magic doesn't follow the rules. Magic doesn't leave evidence (or it leaves evidence indistinguishable from evidence expected if Magic didn't exist). All of the arguments my AiG, The Discovery Institute, The Creation "Museum", Byers, FL, and the entire ID/creationist ilk boil down to: "we know the Bible is factual because is is Magically true" - any evidence that appears to contradict Biblical truth, actually supports the Bible (because of Magic) any lack of evidence for a Biblical account of phenomena is support for the biblical account because of Magic and any evidence that supports a scientific explanation is actually support for the Biblical version...because Magic.

60187mitchells said: for the benefit of any lurkers out there: the problem with all of ID/Creationism (and that way of thinking) relative to science is the acceptance of the miraculous- literally ANYTHING is possible and NOTHING is impossible if you allow for "then a miracle happened" as a step in a scientific inquiry. What evidence supports/rules out a miracle - nothing and everything - Magic flood waters don't need to follow the laws of physics, because they are Magic. Magic boats that can magically support hundreds or thousands of animals for extended periods of time and magically keep them fed, breathing, healthy etc. don't have to have any rational explanations because; MAGIC! Anyone can believe anything they want in their personal religious lives but if you want an explanation of something to be scientific it has to be supported by evidence, and Magic doesn't follow the rules. Magic doesn't leave evidence (or it leaves evidence indistinguishable from evidence expected if Magic didn't exist). All of the arguments my AiG, The Discovery Institute, The Creation "Museum", Byers, FL, and the entire ID/creationist ilk boil down to: "we know the Bible is factual because is is Magically true" - any evidence that appears to contradict Biblical truth, actually supports the Bible (because of Magic) any lack of evidence for a Biblical account of phenomena is support for the biblical account because of Magic and any evidence that supports a scientific explanation is actually support for the Biblical version...because Magic.

There is another problem when the denial of evolution is taken to be an alternative science.

This is most apparent in the case of "Intelligent Design" but it is also true of more conventional "Young Earth Creationism".

The problem that I am speaking of is that there is no attempt at an explanation. Not even an account of what happened, or what it would it look like if we were present to observe it happening. Is it really like a magic act, when a live tiger appears inside a previously empty cage? Or is there a whole family group of animals, of various (apparent) ages? Or is there a whole functioning ecological community of animals and plants, predators and prey and physical environment? Or is it just that some DNA is tweaked so that the next generation has a new organ? And there is no prospect of ever finding why it happens this way, rather than something else; or what will happen next.

It doesn't come up to the standard of magic. Alchemy and astrology are more substantive, maybe even parapsychology.

Marilyn said: It's possible I'm related to everything that has DNA and flesh and blood but at the present time I consider myself a human and try to act like one

If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven't seen one, then you don't get the object,

There has to be an element of what is plausible, and what isn't well then you have to consider why the story was put across in such a way and that there may be a moral behind it.

stevaroni said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: Since there's no place where the water could have run to wouldn't one have to assume the same amount of energy again to evaporate all the water? And where has all the steam gone?

This is, actually, one of the creationist dodges for the "water canopy". There's plenty of vapor in the air, Couldn't it have just rained, then evaporated? No. Thing is, water has weight, whether it's lying on the ground or suspended in the air. If you suspended enough water in the atmosphere to make a 33 foot deep layer over the Earth, it would be enough weight to double the atmospheric pressure. About 90 feet would raise the pressure to the point where the partial pressure of nitrogen would eventually produce neurological damage. The flood was, to emphasize the point, somewhat deeper than 90 feet.

Scott F said:

stevaroni said: The basic idea is that water has mass. The amount of water needed to flood the Earth to the required depths (even accepting the creationist fudge about "mini mountains" pre-flood) is calculable, and enormous. That amount of water "falling from the windows of Heaven" down to the surface of the Earth looses a known amount of potential energy, and that energy is converted to kinetic energy and eventually, to heat, and this energy is readily calculable.

This gets back to my earlier point, which I haven't seen elsewhere. When we think of a "global flood", we imagine a bigger version of the recent Colorado floods, or a bigger version of a tsunami, doing great damage everywhere. But think about it. It takes time for water to flow from one place to another, and it takes a gravity gradient. The floods in Colorado were so destructive, because Colorado is at the base of a high mountain range, and because the rain is localized to a small area. Remember, we have to cover the highest mountain in less only 40 days. Do the math, and you need to add about a foot of water every two minutes, over every square inch of the Earth. Assuming that God can get the water to the surface without frying everything in the process, what then? Instead of Denver, imagine a foot of water falling on Kansas every two minutes. Where is this water going to go? Kansas is as flat as a pancake. Rivers in Kansas are slooooow. Even with normal rainfall, the land of the Great Plains floods and stays flooded for days and weeks before the water can recede. The water will flow to the river, right? But remember. There is a foot of water accumulating every two minutes everywhere. That water that fell on the plain is just going to meet the two feet of water that has already fallen on the river. The river will be just as much higher as the water on the plain. And the seas are rising at the same rate for the same reason. The speed of the Mississippi cannot increase to drain the excess water, because sea level itself is already many feet higher. There's no where for the Mississippi to flow to. The only place for this water to go is up. The water will simply get deeper everywhere at the rate of a foot every two minutes. Imagine, then, that a foot of water would fall on the Rocky Mountains every two minutes. Where is all that water going to go? Down hill, right? How fast is that water going to get to the bottom of the mountain? It takes a finite amount of time for the water to flow down the mountain, while it is actually flowing much farther horizontally than vertically). By the time that water gets to the bottom of the mountain, the plain will already be flooded to tens or hundreds of feet deep. The plains are already a shallow sea. The water from the mountains isn't going to scour anything. It's just going flow into that ever-rising sea of the (former) Great Plains. Similarly, we might imagine a tsunami, rolling in from the ocean, doing all manner of damage. But remember, the same amount of water is accumulating on the land at the same rate. There's nowhere for the tsunami to go. It just meets the water already there. What I'm proposing is that while the water would drown everything, the fluid dynamics ought to suggest that there could be no catastrophic churning and roiling like we imagine with "typical" flood. No massive flows of mud and rock. No rapid "burial" of all the dinosaurs and people. They would all simply drown in place as the waters quickly, but relatively gently rose up. (Unless you happened to be at the just the wrong spot in the foothills of a mountain, which would be a relatively rare occurrence.) Given the constraints of the problem and of flowing water, does this make any sense? I ask, because I don't recall seeing an argument like this before. I'm just wondering if I'm all wet. (Sorry, that really was not meant as a shaggy dog story, but as a serious hypothesis. But, once I got the end, it just had to be said.)

Carl Drews said: If every cloud over the earth were to rain out all its water right now, the total amount of rainfall worldwide would be less than one inch. Clouds don't hold much water on a global basis.

Standard Arkeology says that it was not only rain that was the source of the water, but also "the fountains of the deep. I believe that Ancient Near Eastern cosmology had water not only above the Earth, held back by the firmament, but also below the Earth. (I don't think that this means that the disk of the Earth was floating on water, I think that it was more like caverns full of water, but I'm not well informed about that.)

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: Since there's no place where the water could have run to wouldn't one have to assume the same amount of energy again to evaporate all the water? And where has all the steam gone?

TomS makes an interesting point - I'm curious about how ancient Babylonian/ middle eastern beliefs about the structure of the earth colored the language in Genesis

ksplawn said:

Carl Drews said: If every cloud over the earth were to rain out all its water right now, the total amount of rainfall worldwide would be less than one inch. Clouds don't hold much water on a global basis.

Extremely Minor Nitpick: that's not just clouds, that's all the water vapor in the atmosphere. That's equal to about 0.04% of all the world's freshwater. The comparison to the ice caps is very instructive to help put that in perspective. The world's full inventory of ice sheets sitting on top of land (such as in Greenland and Antarctica) contain about 77% of the world's freshwater. As you said, if all of these and the glaciers went, sea levels would rise by only a few hundred feet. Add an inch for all the water vapor in the atmosphere (miraculously kept liquid despite thermodynamics, as per FL's beliefs), and you're still well short of reaching even the peak of Mt. Ararat, which rises some 16,800 feet above sea level.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

ksplawn said:

Carl Drews said: If every cloud over the earth were to rain out all its water right now, the total amount of rainfall worldwide would be less than one inch. Clouds don't hold much water on a global basis.

Extremely Minor Nitpick: that's not just clouds, that's all the water vapor in the atmosphere. That's equal to about 0.04% of all the world's freshwater. The comparison to the ice caps is very instructive to help put that in perspective. The world's full inventory of ice sheets sitting on top of land (such as in Greenland and Antarctica) contain about 77% of the world's freshwater. As you said, if all of these and the glaciers went, sea levels would rise by only a few hundred feet. Add an inch for all the water vapor in the atmosphere (miraculously kept liquid despite thermodynamics, as per FL's beliefs), and you're still well short of reaching even the peak of Mt. Ararat, which rises some 16,800 feet above sea level.

29,000 ft., plus a bit. Glen Davidson

Carl Drews said: In these vapor canopy calculations, don't forget that the heat of vaporization for water is 600 calories per gram. The surrounding air gains 600 calories/gram when water vapor condenses.

FL said:

Thermodynamics forbids it.

In other words, the God of the Bible is unable to supersede natural laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. Got it. (Sheesh.) FL

magic

TomS said: Standard Arkeology says that it was not only rain that was the source of the water, but also "the fountains of the deep. I believe that Ancient Near Eastern cosmology had water not only above the Earth, held back by the firmament, but also below the Earth. (I don't think that this means that the disk of the Earth was floating on water, I think that it was more like caverns full of water, but I'm not well informed about that.)

Mike Elzinga said: The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.3 x 10¹⁸ kg. The total mass of the descending water would have been about 4.5 x 10²¹ kg. The total energy deposition would have been about 3 x 10²⁹ joules. That mass and energy deposited onto the Earth’s surface would have blasted the entire atmosphere off the planet. Noah and his critters wouldn’t have been able to breathe even if they had survived the first few minutes of the flood.

Wikipedia The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1.5×1018 short tons) or 1.4×10²¹ kg, which is about 0.023 percent of the Earth's total mass. Less than 3 percent is freshwater; the rest is saltwater, mostly in the ocean. The area of the World Ocean is 361 million square kilometres (139 million square miles),[18] and its volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi).[7] This can be thought of as a cube of water with an edge length of 1,111 kilometres (690 mi)

Henry Morris wrote: [p. 325]: ... There is even some evidence of a past lowering of sea level to much greater depths than that of the continental shelf.3 These evidences include the great depth of some of the submarine canyons and some of the flat-topped sea-mounts (for both of which there is strong evidence for formation above sea level) and the many freshwater and shallow-water deposits found in recent years in deep-sea sediments. The nature of these deposits is actually very inadequately known as yet... On the other hand, if convincing evidence should eventually be forthcoming that the sea level actually was several thousand feet lower than at present, as some of these data seem to indicate, then it would appear that the only logical explanation of such lowering would be simply that there was [p. 326]: no more water in the ocean at that time— in other words, that must have been the antediluvian sea level! It is obvious that the immense amount of missing water involved in this amount of lowering could not have been frozen in a great ice sheet, and there seems no other way of explaining where it could be. ‘Most marine geologists today think that the sea floor has subsided, but there is a small minority who think that perhaps the ocean volume increased enough to explain most of the relative sinking of the seamounts. If the latter idea is correct, something on the order of a 30 percent increase in the volume of the oceans must have occurred during the last 100 million years.’1 This interesting alternative reveals something of the impasse faced by uniformitarianism here. The 100-million-year date, of course, is based on the fact that the deposits of coral and foraminifera on the seamounts have been assigned to the late Cretaceous or early Tertiary. But the significant thing is that these data can only be interpreted as due either to great and unexplained subsidence or to a great and unexplained addition of water to the ocean. ‘For some reason that is not known, probably having to do with isostatic adjustment or subcrustal forces, the whole great undersea range sank and, initially, sank fast enough to kill the reef coral when the coral dropped below its life zone in the upper waters.’2 And if the second alternative is chosen, that of a relatively sudden increase of 30 per cent in the volume of the ocean, the compelling question of the source of this water must be faced, and this few geologists can bring themselves to do! But the problem becomes simple if the existence of the antediluvian "waters above the firmament," precipitated at the time of the Deluge, is accepted. [Morris and Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (1961) p. 325-6]

I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood. All the water was held in that 'vapor canopy' and beneath the 'fountains of the deep'. So all the vegetation between creation and the Flood was kept moist by water seeping up from below.

If you have enough ground water to constantly seep to the surface to water plants, that means it's WAY wetter below the surface. That means that Eden, and the rest of the Earth, was one giant bog.

Some paradise.

Mike, do you have any figures on what the surface temperature and pressure on Earth would be if the amount of water (or a significant fraction of it) that supposedly fell in the Flood were held in a 'vapor canopy'? IANAP, but it seems to me that we would have had a second Venus-like greenhouse.

Ron Okimoto said:

Karen S. said:

It’s not just the shape of the teeth that suggests carnivory, by the way. How else can you explain why we’ve even found them directly embedded in the bones of other dinosaurs?

The designer just did it that way

I recall Henry Morris (the old scientific creationist) supposedly claimed that Satan made at least some of the fossils. Likely all the ones he couldn't explain using his expertize in hydrology.

To clarify my previous comment, by "Omphalism applied to dinosaur fossils" I mean that Rabbi Schneerson taught that Satan had created the dinosaur fossils to trick us.

diogeneslamp0 said: Mike, how did you compute those numbers for the mass of the descending water? The mass of the Earth's current ocean are much less, and Henry Morris said that the Vapor Canopy would make up maybe 30% of the current ocean water.

Mike, do you have any figures on what the surface temperature and pressure on Earth would be if the amount of water (or a significant fraction of it) that supposedly fell in the Flood were held in a ‘vapor canopy’? IANAP, but it seems to me that we would have had a second Venus-like greenhouse.

it's an interesting exercise (calculating how the flood just could not be)- but destined to be fruitless
creationists believe that the natural laws of the universe were different
1) before the fall (and maybe on each day of creation)
2) between the fall and the flood
3) after the flood

because that is the only way to 'jive' the present observable universe and thier reading of genesis being literally true

interesting sociology case study - terrifying when you consider some of these poeple influence public policy

Mike Elzinga said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Mike, how did you compute those numbers for the mass of the descending water? The mass of the Earth's current ocean are much less, and Henry Morris said that the Vapor Canopy would make up maybe 30% of the current ocean water.

The mass of the water is 4πR²ρh, where R is the radius of the Earth (6.371 x 10⁶ meters), ρ is the mass density of water (10³ kg/m³), and h is the height of Mt. Everest (8848 meters).

You can’t suspend that much water in the atmosphere in the form of water vapor; it would already be frozen well up into the stratosphere. Besides, the weight of that water is about a thousand times the weight of the atmosphere. If it were “suspended” in the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would be about a thousand times greater. To suspend it would be to heat it to a very high temperature. So it has to have been in outer space.

[p. 256]: ...the stratosphere is quite cold. However, above the stratosphere, the temperature becomes quite warm, well above even the boiling-point of water, so that it would be possible to sustain a tremendous amount of invisible water vapor in the region above the stratosphere, if it somehow were placed there. These high temperatures in the upper atmosphere remain high both day and night, so that there would be no possibility of vapor condensation at night. [p. 257]: It may also be possible that the vapor blanket could have been in the upper troposphere, below the stratosphere. The additional water vapor would have warmed not only the earth's surface but also the atmosphere more uniformly. ‘An increase of water vapor . . . would raise the temperature of the earth's surface . . . and would increase the temperature of the air at a height of four or five miles more than that at the surface, and so lessen the decrease of temperature with height.’2 If the canopy were located at a high elevation in the lower atmosphere, not only would the increased temperatures at that level permit its maintenance but, as Fred Whipple pointed out,3 condensation nuclei would not rise to that level. And regardless of temperature, water vapor cannot condense unless nuclei of condensation are available. ‘Condensation does not begin until the water vapor has a suitable surface on which to condense… All evidence to date points to sea salt as being the principal nucleus of condensation, with sulfurous and nitrous acids playing a secondary role.’4 As a matter of fact, it would seem that the vapor blanket could possibly be substantially lower than 20,000 feet without being precipitated. Since the atmospheric temperatures would be very much more uniform than at present, both vertically and latitudinally, there would be very little atmospheric turbulence. Consequently the higher levels of the troposphere would be virtually free of salt particles and other potential condensation nuclei. Thus such a vapor canopy could be maintained indefinitely, until something happened to mix it with the cold gases of the stratosphere and to supply meteoric or other particles for nucleation. [Morris and Whitcomb, "The Genesis Flood", p.256-7]

diogeneslamp0 said: Well, that's not valid to YECism because YECs say Mount Everest didn't exist at the time of the Flood. I've seen some of them write that the highest hills at the time of the Flood would be maybe 400 feet high. That's why I think Henry Morris' value of 30% of the Earth's ocean is a good value, easy to compute, and explicitly advanced by him. If your mass is off by an order of magnitude, then the energy of canopy collapse is off by an order of magnitude. So, that makes the Flood totally plausible.

Mr. Ham ran an article, by a pastor, Robby Gallaty, the other day entitled The same quality you expect from Disney World. I hate to make odious comparisons, but perhaps they are saying that the Genesis story is as believable as a Mickey Mouse story? No? One can only hope.

Mr. Ham's next article, Don't let the mud stick, boasts of the number of PhD's who work for him and claims that they carry out real research. Hard to see how that could be possible, considering that they agree in writing that they know the outcome in advance. I will wait with bated breath till one of them publishes a convincing creationist article in a real scientific journal and not the Mickey Mouse creationist journals that Mr. Ham boasts of.

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost. When you dismiss the instruction book, you don't get the object...but you DO get to spend the resources you would have spent building it to build something else. Theologies have an opportunity cost too. They are not 'all benefit, no possible cost.' There's a direct cost associated with living that theology, and there's the opportunity cost associated with not gaining the benefits provided by living one of the alternative theologies instead.

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost. When you dismiss the instruction book, you don't get the object...but you DO get to spend the resources you would have spent building it to build something else. Theologies have an opportunity cost too. They are not 'all benefit, no possible cost.' There's a direct cost associated with living that theology, and there's the opportunity cost associated with not gaining the benefits provided by living one of the alternative theologies instead.

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham ran an article, by a pastor, Robby Gallaty, the other day entitled The same quality you expect from Disney World. I hate to make odious comparisons, but perhaps they are saying that the Genesis story is as believable as a Mickey Mouse story? No? One can only hope. Mr. Ham's next article, Don't let the mud stick, boasts of the number of PhD's who work for him and claims that they carry out real research. Hard to see how that could be possible, considering that they agree in writing that they know the outcome in advance. I will wait with bated breath till one of them publishes a convincing creationist article in a real scientific journal and not the Mickey Mouse creationist journals that Mr. Ham boasts of.

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood. All the water was held in that 'vapor canopy' and beneath the 'fountains of the deep'. So all the vegetation between creation and the Flood was kept moist by water seeping up from below. If you have enough ground water to constantly seep to the surface to water plants, that means it's WAY wetter below the surface. That means that Eden, and the rest of the Earth, was one giant bog. Some paradise.

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood.

Scott F said: But remember. There is a foot of water accumulating every two minutes everywhere.

eric said:

Scott F said: But remember. There is a foot of water accumulating every two minutes everywhere.

This brings to mind another possible calculation. I'll predict the outcome but let someone else handle the actual math. Calculate the boyancy of the ark. This is the upward force keeping most of it above the waterline. Calculate the force of the falling water. That's a downward force on the boat. Prediction: acknowledging there may be exceptinos for some very wierd boat geometries, for "standard" arks the latter will be stronger than the former. IOW, the force of the water coming down would push any actual ark completely below the waterline.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: I wonder what must happen in ones life to make a PhD work for this wannabe Noah who beleaves that his god was involved in getting those bones for his pseudo-museum. Move me to the batroom wall but I think we really need at least two additional ICD and DSM categories. One for delusional prophets like Ken Ham and another for their followers

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham ran an article, by a pastor, Robby Gallaty, the other day entitled The same quality you expect from Disney World. I hate to make odious comparisons, but perhaps they are saying that the Genesis story is as believable as a Mickey Mouse story? No? One can only hope. Mr. Ham's next article, Don't let the mud stick, boasts of the number of PhD's who work for him and claims that they carry out real research. Hard to see how that could be possible, considering that they agree in writing that they know the outcome in advance. I will wait with bated breath till one of them publishes a convincing creationist article in a real scientific journal and not the Mickey Mouse creationist journals that Mr. Ham boasts of.

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost...Theologies have an opportunity cost too...

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

eric said:

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood.

How about waterfalls? Mists? The spray off waves?

Carl Drews said:

eric said:

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood.

How about waterfalls? Mists? The spray off waves?

Genesis 2:6: and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground It's called dew farming. Fog precipitation is important to the redwood forests of northern California. "Land" (Hebrew erets) refers only to the region of Eden, anyway.

Carl Drews said:

eric said:

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood.

How about waterfalls? Mists? The spray off waves?

Genesis 2:6: and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Just Bob said:

Carl Drews said:

eric said:

Just Bob said: I was told by a creationist that there was no rainbow before Noah's time because there was no rain prior to the Flood.

How about waterfalls? Mists? The spray off waves?

Genesis 2:6: and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground It's called dew farming. Fog precipitation is important to the redwood forests of northern California. "Land" (Hebrew erets) refers only to the region of Eden, anyway.

Yeah, but the fog you mention is not a 'mist going up from the land'. It's condensation in moisture-laden air coming off the SEA. If the land is so wet that mist can rise FROM it to water plants, then why would they need the mist? Unless of course it's some kind of magic mist. Or magic plants that need more water than waterlogged ground can provide.

diogeneslamp0 said: Kurt Wise is the only YEC I know who rejects the argument that Stromatolites were just illusions-- he regards them as real organisms, but he hypothesized that they might have been produced on Day Two of creation week when God separated the waters from the land-- which he knows is heretical because then death precedes Adam eating an apple.

diogeneslamp0 said: Kurt Wise is the only YEC I know who rejects the argument that Stromatolites were just illusions-- he regards them as real organisms, but he hypothesized that they might have been produced on Day Two of creation week when God separated the waters from the land-- which he knows is heretical because then death precedes Adam eating an apple.

We've got a long way from the original post.

I want to know why, since it already has Ken Ham, does the Creation Museum want another fossil.

eric said:

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost...Theologies have an opportunity cost too...

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

Nope, it's economics, though the concept is probably older than the field. You said: "If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven’t seen one, then you don’t get the object." My response is: true, but when you dismiss the instruction book, you "get back" the time and effort you would have spent building the object. When the object is less valuable than (some other use of) the time and effort needed to build it, you are better off dismissing the instruction book.

Kevin B said: We've got a long way from the original post. I want to know why, since it already has Ken Ham, does the Creation Museum want another fossil.

Just Bob said:

Kevin B said: We've got a long way from the original post. I want to know why, since it already has Ken Ham, does the Creation Museum want another fossil.

And how do they know their Allosaurus isn't one of the fakes planted by Satan -- and they're not doing Satan's work by displaying it?

Just Bob said:

Kevin B said: ..since it already has Ken Ham, [why] does the Creation Museum want another fossil.

And how do they know their Allosaurus isn't one of the fakes planted by Satan

Dave Lovell said:

eric said:

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost...Theologies have an opportunity cost too...

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

Nope, it's economics, though the concept is probably older than the field. You said: "If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven’t seen one, then you don’t get the object." My response is: true, but when you dismiss the instruction book, you "get back" the time and effort you would have spent building the object. When the object is less valuable than (some other use of) the time and effort needed to build it, you are better off dismissing the instruction book.

More simply perhaps Marilyn, which would "help the poor" the most? Spending an hour begging God to help the poor, or giving an hour to actually "help the poor"?

Dave Lovell said:

eric said:

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost...Theologies have an opportunity cost too...

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

Nope, it's economics, though the concept is probably older than the field. You said: "If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven’t seen one, then you don’t get the object." My response is: true, but when you dismiss the instruction book, you "get back" the time and effort you would have spent building the object. When the object is less valuable than (some other use of) the time and effort needed to build it, you are better off dismissing the instruction book.

More simply perhaps Marilyn, which would "help the poor" the most? Spending an hour begging God to help the poor, or giving an hour to actually "help the poor"?

diogeneslamp0 said: Well, that's not valid to YECism because YECs say Mount Everest didn't exist at the time of the Flood. I've seen some of them write that the highest hills at the time of the Flood would be maybe 400 feet high.

apokryltaros said:

Dave Lovell said:

eric said:

Marilyn said:

eric said: All such "objects" have an opportunity cost...Theologies have an opportunity cost too...

Is this something to do with thermo dynamics

Nope, it's economics, though the concept is probably older than the field. You said: "If you dismiss an instruction book of how to build whatever because you haven’t seen one, then you don’t get the object." My response is: true, but when you dismiss the instruction book, you "get back" the time and effort you would have spent building the object. When the object is less valuable than (some other use of) the time and effort needed to build it, you are better off dismissing the instruction book.

More simply perhaps Marilyn, which would "help the poor" the most? Spending an hour begging God to help the poor, or giving an hour to actually "help the poor"?

Which would "help the poor" more? Tricking the local government and local citizens into giving you millions upon millions of dollars to build and operate a theme park that hemorrhages money while teaching children that science is evil, or going out to actually "help the poor"?

Marilyn said: These days I think it would be better to work on a heat shield.

DS said:

Marilyn said: These days I think it would be better to work on a heat shield.

I agree. Why don't you get right on that and let us know what you come up with. It's got to be better than a fake "museum" or "theme park".

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: These days I think it would be better to work on a heat shield.

I agree. Why don't you get right on that and let us know what you come up with. It's got to be better than a fake "museum" or "theme park".

Oh yes pass the book on to somebody else. There would have to be at least 4 preferably 8 points on Earth evenly placed that when turned on would connect together to create an atmosphere that is very cold or be able to be set to a just right temperature. I don't know what the substance that does the cooling is yet hopefully someone will know, perhaps Ozone or clouds that make rainbows.

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: These days I think it would be better to work on a heat shield.

I agree. Why don't you get right on that and let us know what you come up with. It's got to be better than a fake "museum" or "theme park".

Oh yes pass the book on to somebody else. There would have to be at least 4 preferably 8 points on Earth evenly placed that when turned on would connect together to create an atmosphere that is very cold or be able to be set to a just right temperature. I don't know what the substance that does the cooling is yet hopefully someone will know, perhaps Ozone or clouds that make rainbows.

stevaroni said: I suspect that Noah's manure piles would probably self-ignite constantly, which is an amusing image.

Better start working on that heat shield.

Mike Elzinga said: The change in potential energy per kilogram turns out to be gR where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s²) and R is the radius of the Earth (6.371 m). Thus gR is fixed at 6.26 x 10⁷ J/kg.

Mike Elzinga said:

stevaroni said: I suspect that Noah's manure piles would probably self-ignite constantly, which is an amusing image.

Here are some interesting facts about ice falling from space. The change in potential energy per kilogram turns out to be gR where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s²) and R is the radius of the Earth (6.371 m). Thus gR is fixed at 6.26 x 10⁷ J/kg. Now it takes 3.58 x 10⁶ J/kg to take water from near absolute zero all the way to steam at 373 K. That includes the energy for the phase transitions along the way. The amount of energy from the fall from space is about 17.5 times the amount of energy required to turn ice at near absolute zero to steam. It would take about 2.3 days to turn the ice into steam. If we continued to dump the rest of the energy per kilogram into each kilogram for the remaining 37.7 days, we would raise the temperature of the water to about 3.1 x 10⁴ K, or about 55,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course it would all be suspended as a vapor in the atmosphere. However, there would come a point of equilibrium between the rate of energy input and the rate of energy lost from water vapor that gets ejected back into space plus the energy lost to blackbody radiation. A blackbody radiator at a temperature of 7.3 x 10⁴ K or, 12,700 degrees Fahrenheit, would radiate at the incoming rate of energy deposition of 1.6 x 10⁸ W/m². So we can expect that atmospheric temperatures will get to at least 12,700 degrees Fahrenheit fairly soon within that 40 day period.

apokryltaros said: ... she then prayed to have God take me to Hell and suffer...

James said: CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Soot.

DS said: Better start working on that heat shield.

No Marilyn, It's you r idea. I wouldn't dream of stealing the credit. You are going to have to save mankind yourselves. And of curse you are the one who must take the blame if you fail. how could you course this imbalance? How could you let this happen? You were given warnings and instructions it's not working so good. you must ream of all the consequences by yourselfish.

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said:

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: Hi Marilyn. Offtopic, but did your copy of Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" (click link here) arrive yet? If so, what are your impressions? Byers and others like him seem determined to ignore this and other similar books. Marilyn, I at least give you some credit for taking the plunge.

I appreciate this recommendation not too difficult to read and is understandable, written by someone who found a significant fossil and in this resent time, bringing new leads to light. So not too of topic.

Then you have no issue about being distantly related to fish? At least you might now have a grasp about how the predictions of evolutionary theory were used to find Tiktaalik. Maybe perhaps an idea why humans hiccup. :) You might appreciate this Ken Miller lecture (especially from about the 8 minute 50 second mark where Miller discusses Shubin's quest to find an intermediate between fish and amphibian, later found as Tiktaalik). Same with this Ken Miller talk (Shubin discussed from about the 27 minute mark). Also, you might consider Ken Miller's own popular level books Finding Darwin's God and Only A Theory. Miller has not made a secret of his religious beliefs, yet he is also one of the strongest advocates of evolutionary theory.

It's possible I'm related to everything that has DNA and flesh and blood but at the present time I consider myself a human and try to act like one and also believe in the creator and that he wants the best for us within the environment we're in.

I said: Had there been enough water vapor in the atmosphere to drop 400 feet of rain, the sea level air pressure would be about 195psi. the partial pressure of nitrogen would have been about 150psi ... the partial pressure of oxygen in such an atmosphere, at 40psi

Heat shield

One of the ideas bandied about for mitigating global warming is some kind of heat shield. Soot indeed cools the earth for a few years, as demonstrated by the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. Agung in Indonesia.

On the negative side, the health and environmental effects of soot are not good, so another idea is for an orbiting heat shield. Sounds crazy? Maybe so. But sometimes a crazy idea gets morphed into a more practical approach through ongoing discussion. Have at it, Marilyn! Your contributions are time-stamped at this blog and you'll be sure to get a citation for your idea.

Allosaurus fossil

Marilyn said: It's possible I'm related to everything that has DNA and flesh and blood but at the present time I consider myself a human and try to act like one and also believe in the creator and that he wants the best for us within the environment we're in.

DS said: No Marilyn, It's you r idea. I wouldn't dream of stealing the credit. You are going to have to save mankind yourselves. And of curse you are the one who must take the blame if you fail. how could you course this imbalance? How could you let this happen? You were given warnings and instructions it's not working so good. you must ream of all the consequences by yourselfish.

Well said Marilyn. I certainly am agreein with youins on them. Start pushing that trolley, kelvin is a waitin for all to be complete.

Because of its location, the heat shield would be of little help to Noah.

High school physics can get most of the significant points about energy; as we demonstrated earlier.

However, to get into more detail, one has to know a little more and be able to solve a nonlinear differential equation numerically.

Just for fun, I ran a simulation on a graphing calculator (the HP50G). I included the heating of the atmosphere and also checked two scenarios in which I allowed blackbody radiation to go only outward into space or both outward into space and inward into the Earth.

In both cases, the temperature rises nearly linearly and then levels off, due to blackbody radiation, within the first 20 minutes. In the case where blackbody radiation of the superheated atmosphere is only outward into space, the temperature reaches a maximum of 12,700 degrees Fahrenheit. If I permit the blackbody radiation to also go into the Earth, then the maximum temperature gets to only 10,700 degrees Fahrenheit.

This calculation does not allow for the work done by the expansion of the atmosphere in Earth’s gravity or for the ablation of the atmosphere into outer space. It also does not allow for the thermal conductivity of the Earth in carrying away the heat.

Given the very large magnitude of the energy input, it is reasonable to treat the first 20 minutes as a roughly adiabatic process except for the blackbody radiation. As the atmosphere swells and ablates, more energy is carried away, so we would expect to see the maximum temperature to be somewhat lower. But we still have nearly 40 days of bombardment to go. If Noah and his critters were not steam broiled within the first 20 minutes, eventually they’re cooked.

DS said: Start pushing that trolley, kelvin is a waitin for all to be complete.

Marilyn said:

DS said: Start pushing that trolley, kelvin is a waitin for all to be complete.

Kelvin is not waitin it's coming !!!!!11!!!!!

So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

Marilyn said:

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

I hope this isn't too much off topic but does this mean that there was a turning point where earth could be like it is or become a star and that there was something that happened that decided it to be like it is, and could that point have been after Earth was developing, could it have been at the k-t line.

Keelyn said:

Marilyn said:

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

I hope this isn't too much off topic but does this mean that there was a turning point where earth could be like it is or become a star and that there was something that happened that decided it to be like it is, and could that point have been after Earth was developing, could it have been at the k-t line.

Wha wha wha, huh? What?? I’m sorry, Marilyn, but your question leaves me totally baffled (it is a question, isn’t it?). Exactly what are you trying to imply? Perhaps you could rephrase the question (again, it is a question, is it not? It appears to have the form of a question.) differently.

Helena Constantine said:

Keelyn said:

Marilyn said:

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

I hope this isn't too much off topic but does this mean that there was a turning point where earth could be like it is or become a star and that there was something that happened that decided it to be like it is, and could that point have been after Earth was developing, could it have been at the k-t line.

Wha wha wha, huh? What?? I’m sorry, Marilyn, but your question leaves me totally baffled (it is a question, isn’t it?). Exactly what are you trying to imply? Perhaps you could rephrase the question (again, it is a question, is it not? It appears to have the form of a question.) differently.

Let me explain. Marilyn doesn't know the difference between a star and a planet and mistook the hyperbolic statement above as some profound literal scientific truth (she also doesn't know what the KT boundary is). Marilyn, let me explain further. No, the earth could never have been a star--its s a solid mass of rock, not fusing hydrogen. What the statement meant, is that the energy released by this supposed flood event would have momentarily made the earth shine more brightly than the sun (besides sterilizing the entire planet). The KT Boundary is a deposit of dust or ash particularly rich in iridium that covered the entire earth rapidly and occurs the world over in the same place in the geological column. Tt is generally thought to be the result of a meteor impact.

The Creation Museum -- a Hanna Barbera production.

“While ever the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and he, summer and winter, day and night will never cease”. - Genesis ch 8 vs 22 what part of this has been proven wrong.

While ever the battery lasts the light will shine - While ever the light the battery will work.
Which is the best explanation?
For me, while ever the battery lasts the light will shine.
While ever the earth endures, first clue that the earth could have a limit to its endurance,
that has been more or less proven by what happens out in space.
But the statement was written how many years-centuries-milleniums ago.
And still holds true and proves to be sensible. Whoever it was that wrote it.

Helena Constantine said: The KT Boundary is a deposit of dust or ash particularly rich in iridium that covered the entire earth rapidly and occurs the world over in the same place in the geological column. Tt is generally thought to be the result of a meteor impact.

Marilyn said: “While ever the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and he, summer and winter, day and night will never cease”. - Genesis ch 8 vs 22 what part of this has been proven wrong.

Well, day and night will cease alternating when the Earth becomes tidally locked with the sun. This effect is happening, although it's very slow, in human scales. It seems that the Earth's rotation is slowing, lengthening the day by about .005 seconds per year.

Which would imply that in about twenty million years, the days and nights will be twice as long as now, and in 640 million years the Earth's 'day' will be as long as its year, and it will always show the same face to the sun, thus ending night and day. One side will be eternal day, and the other eternal night.

Summer and winter? There is no "summer" and "winter" in the tropics, where almost a third of humanity lives. (There are also those who remark that there are plenty of years when the British Isles don't have a summer, but let us ignore such carping.) The writer of Genesis - whoever that was - was doing what the OT writers all did - talking about the local conditions he knew about.

But it's excellent poetry. Which is where we came in.

Marilyn, which would be a more viable option to help (Anthropogenic) Global Warming?

Dreaming up a way to protect the earth with a "heat shield" that may or may not work due to issues of technology levels, funding and those pesky laws of physics sabotaging your imagination, or educating people about the causes of global warming and encouraging them to find doable solutions that said causes?

And which would be a more positive way of spreading the Gospels of Jesus to people?

Buying an Allosaurus skeleton in deliberately lure in children in order to simultaneously brainwash said children into Science-Hating Bigots For Jesus, and steal their parents' money right out of their pockets, or going out and helping people as per Jesus' big song and dance numbers in the New Testament?

"find doable solutions that reduce, mitigate or eliminate said causes"

Marilyn said:

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

I hope this isn't too much off topic but does this mean that there was a turning point where earth could be like it is or become a star and that there was something that happened that decided it to be like it is, and could that point have been after Earth was developing, could it have been at the k-t line.

KlausH said:

Marilyn said:

fnxtr said:

Marilyn said: So I seem to gather we wouldn't have become like Europa we would have become like Venus, if God hadn't remembered Noah.

At 10,000 degrees, we'd be more like the brightest star in our solar system.

I hope this isn't too much off topic but does this mean that there was a turning point where earth could be like it is or become a star and that there was something that happened that decided it to be like it is, and could that point have been after Earth was developing, could it have been at the k-t line.

For the Earth to become a star, you would need to add a start to it! I can not make any sense out of your recent series of posts. People are pointing out how ridiculous and impossible the Noah's flood story is, and you seem to think this means that God saved the planet.

apokryltaros said: Marilyn, which would be a more viable option to help (Anthropogenic) Global Warming? Dreaming up a way to protect the earth with a "heat shield" that may or may not work due to issues of technology levels, funding and those pesky laws of physics sabotaging your imagination, or educating people about the causes of global warming and encouraging them to find doable solutions that said causes? And which would be a more positive way of spreading the Gospels of Jesus to people? Buying an Allosaurus skeleton in deliberately lure in children in order to simultaneously brainwash said children into Science-Hating Bigots For Jesus, and steal their parents' money right out of their pockets, or going out and helping people as per Jesus' big song and dance numbers in the New Testament?

Marilyn said: I do think though it's good for people to see it. The Creation Museum will present it as they see it.

Helena Constantine said: Let me explain. Marilyn doesn't know the difference between a star and a planet and mistook the hyperbolic statement above as some profound literal scientific truth (she also doesn't know what the KT boundary is).

Besides that, if the lengthening of the day is due to the moon, then the day will cease getting longer once the moon is ejected into its own solar orbit.

ad hominem
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I don't see either of these in the AIG article. He simply lays out the credentials - not character - of the two men. And notes that 'It should be pointed out that Dan Phelps is known for his regular attacks on the Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum.' Which you confirm as true with 'a perpetual thorn in the side of the Creation “Museum” '. Could you explain exactly where the so called ad hominem is located? I surely could have missed it, but simply labeling it as such does not mean its accurate.

Ad hominem per definition is what you have done here, with mocking (putting Museum in quotes) and saying their research is fake and that they are 'hired guns' like the tobacco industry. I'm confident I could find much worse (or better from your perspective) ad hominem attacks on your site.

So let the ad hominems begin for me - I predict a zero percent chance of it not happening.

John Stell said: ad hominem 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. I don't see either of these in the AIG article. He simply lays out the credentials - not character - of the two men. And notes that 'It should be pointed out that Dan Phelps is known for his regular attacks on the Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum.' Which you confirm as true with 'a perpetual thorn in the side of the Creation “Museum” '. Could you explain exactly where the so called ad hominem is located? I surely could have missed it, but simply labeling it as such does not mean its accurate. Ad hominem per definition is what you have done here, with mocking (putting Museum in quotes) and saying their research is fake and that they are 'hired guns' like the tobacco industry. I'm confident I could find much worse (or better from your perspective) ad hominem attacks on your site. So let the ad hominems begin for me - I predict a zero percent chance of it not happening.

I think it is necessary to distinguish between satire (or irony or sarcasm) and an ad hominem attack. Mr. Ham's dismissal of Mr. Phelps was based largely on the fact that Mr. Phelps does not have a Ph.D. degree.

John Stell said: ad hominem 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. I don't see either of these in the AIG article. He simply lays out the credentials - not character - of the two men. And notes that 'It should be pointed out that Dan Phelps is known for his regular attacks on the Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum.' Which you confirm as true with 'a perpetual thorn in the side of the Creation “Museum” '. Could you explain exactly where the so called ad hominem is located? I surely could have missed it, but simply labeling it as such does not mean its accurate. Ad hominem per definition is what you have done here, with mocking (putting Museum in quotes) and saying their research is fake and that they are 'hired guns' like the tobacco industry. I'm confident I could find much worse (or better from your perspective) ad hominem attacks on your site. So let the ad hominems begin for me - I predict a zero percent chance of it not happening.

DS said: Well then John, (if I may call you that without being accused of an ad hominem attack), why don't we discuss the science? How old would you say this dinosaur fossil is? What evidence do you have to support your claim? How old does Ken Ham say it is? What evidence does he have to support his claim? Do you believe that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous? What evidence do you have to support your claim? [snip]

Does "ad homonym" apply when the argument in question has already been thoroughly refuted by lots of times, by lots of different people, maybe even in several different ways?

Henry J said: Does "ad homonym" apply when the argument in question has already been thoroughly refuted by lots of times, by lots of different people, maybe even in several different ways?