farmerman wrote:..That means that the 1990 calculations of the bouyancy factor for the ark has to be way off (according to Ghyben -Herzberg principle)...
Here spendi - this one's for you:
And you've verified the "Ghyben -Herzberg principle" to be true in ALL situations? Please show evidence that the G-H principle is correct. Then show evidence that your assertion is true in the case of Noah's Ark.
I try to avoid fancy sounding incoherence baddog. I haven't a clue what the sentence means actually.
The tale always struck me as a witty shaggy dog story which goes over the head of the po-faced like that one where Ulysses has himself tied to the mast and stops up his crew's ears to get past the Sirens in one piece.
BD, Im sure you looked up the Ghyben Herzberg principle. Put it in your own words for both D"arcy and Non D'Arcy conditions. You may use an additional blue book.
You could always discuss it in the Hubbert dynamic association cases. Perhaps that would be more comfortable.
farmerman wrote:BD, Im sure you looked up the Ghyben Herzberg principle. Put it in your own words for both D"arcy and Non D'Arcy conditions. You may use an additional blue book.
You could always discuss it in the Hubbert dynamic association cases. Perhaps that would be more comfortable.
Almost exactly as I suspected. Spendi's assessments have been spot-on. :wink:
Without concerning oneself with idiotic contentions such as are embodied in the drivel from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) above, perhaps BD can tell me where the water went after it receded.
Genesis Chapter 8, Verses 1 through 5, in the King James Version:
And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
So, when the waters were "assuaged," and "returned from off the earth continually," and "were abated," and "decreaed continually," where did the water go?
Setanta wrote:Without concerning oneself with idiotic contentions such as are embodied in the drivel from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) above, perhaps BD can tell me where the water went after it receded.
I've stayed out of this thread because of its futility. But to answer your question about where the water went, I refer you to the recent discovery of a giant drain hole in the Mariana Trench.
Or is it just filling the Mariana Trench?
That's a highly tendentious statement, Neo. To refer to a "drain" in the Mariana Trench suggests that you possess information which no one else posses. If there were such a drain, apart from implying that this subduction junction has been, more or less, static for 5000 years, in defiance of all the data which geologists have on it, then perhaps you could explain how it would drain away enough water to cover all of the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits in the space of a few weeks, but has failed to drain away the waters which fill the oceans in 5000 years.
This article from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which was written in July, 2004, and updated in October, 2007, makes no mention of your drain, although it describes the Mariana Trench. Woods Hole is just about the most prestigious oceanographic institution in the world. Are you willing to claim that you know something about the Mariana Trench that they don't?
Got a source for your dog and pony show?
The Mariana Trench-dot-com website makes no mention of a "drain." Got that source for us yet, Neo?
If someone, perhaps a prestigious Oceanographic Institute, would clean that drain, I bet they find they find an Ark stuck in it.
That's gonna require a shitpot of Draino . . .
I wasn't offering an "emotional" argument, i was asking a question. You are making extraordinary claims, and therefore have the burden of providing proof. You have provided none.
Setanta wrote: I wasn't offering an "emotional" argument, i was asking a question. You are making extraordinary claims, and therefore have the burden of providing proof. You have provided none.
No emotion from:
Setanta wrote: Without concerning oneself with idiotic contentions such as are embodied in the drivel from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) above, perhaps BD can tell me where the water went after it receded.
Nice try.
As to your contention of me providing no proof and extraordinary claims, you are also incorrect. I am providing pertinent evidence and sources; you just don't agree. That's fine w/me - you don't have to agree.
You're not providing pertinent evidence of any description. You're providing bullshit claims from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha), most of which doesn't even make logical sense, let alone have a reliable grounding in science.
For example, in the horseshit about the "ark," they allege that 800 trees were used (and pretty damned small trees, at that, even though they make an unsubstantiated claim that "conditions were more favorable then"--more favorable than what, more favorable for what?) to construct a ship more than twice as large as Constitution, which, as the evidence i provided shows, required 2000 trees to build. In your latest foray, the describe sub-oceanic trenchs as subduction zones, and then object to the presence of shallow water fossils in those regions--even though a subduction area is one in which surface materials are gradually driven down and under an adjoining plate. Over sufficient time, it is completely reasonable to expect to find fossils of every description.
It's not a matter of what i am prepared to agree with--it is a matter of you having failed to provide any reliable evidence, because your sources don't provide any reliable evidence.
"Creation Science" . . . Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
By the way, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute can reasonably be described as a reliable source on sub-oceanic geology. "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) web sites have no such credentials.
Setanta wrote:That's a highly tendentious statement, Neo. To refer to a "drain" in the Mariana Trench suggests that you possess information which no one else posses. If there were such a drain, apart from implying that this subduction junction has been, more or less, static for 5000 years, in defiance of all the data which geologists have on it, then perhaps you could explain how it would drain away enough water to cover all of the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits in the space of a few weeks, but has failed to drain away the waters which fill the oceans in 5000 years.
OUCH! My tongue is so far into my cheek, it hurts.
