jmog wrote: A quick calculation says that in 100 years, 8 people can become 500,000 people given a baby born per year per couple (I actually got about 700k, but listed a more conservative figure), and then when the kids get to about 15 years old they start having kids too.

It wouldn't take that "long" to get a population going if the people mate like rabits so to speak.

They were also told to spread out to repopulate the world (if you believe the story) so given pangea, traveling, etc its conceivable that they could have easily moved the 4 familes to vastly separate regions quickly and started the repopulation.

I'm not saying anything I've said proves the flood scientifically, I'm just saying that science doesn't also disprove it.

I am by no means an expert on this, just asking a question. If they 4 families traveled to remote areas and then had kids and their kids mated with others from the same offspring wouldn't it basically be incest and then result in genetic issues, both mental and physical?

The problem with Young Earth Creationism is that the idea of it sounds so damn rediculious to your average rational semi intelligent human being that it is dismissed on the spot. There is plenty of evidence that points towards design but trying to convince people that young earth creationism is fact is almost certainly a loosing battle especially when the vast majority of the scientific data says otherwise.

Much stronger case to be made for old earth creationism.

These topics always degenerate into the same ole, same ole.

Anything new? Does anybody have any fresh ideas?

Tinkertrain wrote: The problem with Young Earth Creationism is that the idea of it sounds so damn rediculious to your average rational semi intelligent human being that it is dismissed on the spot. There is plenty of evidence that points towards design but trying to convince people that young earth creationism is fact is almost certainly a loosing battle especially when the vast majority of the scientific data says otherwise.

Much stronger case to be made for old earth creationism.

I agree. I think the bible supports this.

Maybe you are aware of the story of Lucifer in the Bible. God's chosen angel to lead his creation in worship. Reflecting God's glory through out his creation. I believe the Bible states that Lucifer disseminated that power from earth in the garden of Eden (Ezekial 28:13). Of course the story goes on to say Lucifer rebelled against God because he became prideful in his powerful position. At this point the earth was cast into darkness. This would have happend in the time from the beginning in Genisis 1:1 and the recreation in Genisis 1:2. That time period is indefinite and could be billions and billions of years.

I saw a theory out there that Zwick really created the universe but it has some haters.

tk421 wrote: No one would ever believe it if it weren't a part of the Bible. It's as crazy as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

Don't talk about Santa that way.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I'm just going to go ahead and say anyone who believes the Bible is 100% accurate needs to have their head examined. The same could probably be said for those who think the Bible is 0% accurate.

The story of Noah isn't about proving or disproving God. I believe in God. But I also believe the majority of these Old Testament stories are laughable, and people that don't agree aren't using the brain that their God gave them.

This is my belief. I believe, but I don't believe everything written in the Bible since man has written the Bible and man is flawed.

joebaseball wrote:

jmog wrote: A quick calculation says that in 100 years, 8 people can become 500,000 people given a baby born per year per couple (I actually got about 700k, but listed a more conservative figure), and then when the kids get to about 15 years old they start having kids too.

It wouldn't take that "long" to get a population going if the people mate like rabits so to speak.

They were also told to spread out to repopulate the world (if you believe the story) so given pangea, traveling, etc its conceivable that they could have easily moved the 4 familes to vastly separate regions quickly and started the repopulation.

I'm not saying anything I've said proves the flood scientifically, I'm just saying that science doesn't also disprove it.

I am by no means an expert on this, just asking a question. If they 4 families traveled to remote areas and then had kids and their kids mated with others from the same offspring wouldn't it basically be incest and then result in genetic issues, both mental and physical?

Yes, it's called politicians.

jmog wrote:

Bigred1995 wrote:

jmog wrote:
1. You do realize that there are millions/billions of gallons of water under the ground right? The water "abaded" according to the Bible, went under ground, formed the underground rivers/wells we have today. Not to mention that who's to say the oceans weren't much lower before the flood than they are now?

2. Ecosystems got replenished the same way the animal populations did. Plus, not all plant life, bacteria, etc would die in the flood waters. And who said it had to be all fresh water? You have to remember that in the flood story it wasn't all rain, the "fountains of the deep" rose up as well.

3. The Bible clearly describes Noah taking food/provisions on the ark, so I'm sure why that is even a question.

4. The predators could have easily been in "pins" or compartments. I mean how do we keep lions from eating the deer at a zoo? Its not really that hard of a concept to figure out.

5. I already answered the pangea age question above.

jmog,
my good buddy! I'm going out of town for a long golf trip and won't be able to get back to you until Tuesday, but I'd like for you to do something for me! It concerns the part I have in bold in your quote above, since you like to do math (I'm still waiting on that model by the way), I'd like you to actually take the time to do some to back up that ridiculous statement you made. Don't worry I'll help you out!

First, I'd like for you to roughly calculate about how much water it would have taken to cover the earth 10 cubits above the highest mountain.

[size=xx-small]Hint: all you have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + (mt everest + 10 cubits); then subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth (I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere thats why I said roughly). [/size]

Once you have that number, compare it to Earth's hydrosphere
[size=xx-small](Hint: Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonne)[/size]

Once you answer that then we'll discuss the effects that much water would have had on the Earth!

If you don't feel like doing this, i'd understand and i'll have the numbers when I get back on Tuesday!

Until then, have a good weekend!

Notice I didn't say ALL of the water from the flood formed the underground rivers/wells. I also included the possibility that the oceans are higher now than before.

Also, if the flood is "correct" and the plates shifted after the flood, the tallest mountains in the world (Himalayas, etc) wouldn't have existed yet since they were caused by the plates crashing into each other.

So, the water wouldn't have to be 10-15 cubits above modern day Mount Everest. Just a thought to throw in there.


Edit: Your demeaning sarcasm isn't like you. I understand how to calculate a simple volume, but like I just said above, Mt. Everest, and most of the world's tallest mountains wouldn't have existed yet at the flood due to plate tectonics.

I also found my one population model that is a logarithmic style growth with population maxes and growth rates included, I'm still trying to find the one where I added pred/prey into that model. Its probably on a thumb drive somewhere since I can't find it on the PC. I will PM you the constants I used for the log growth without pred/prey ASAP if you like in the mean time.

This is so dumb.

You realize that other mountain ranges were taller back in the day too? The Appalachians would be significantly larger than present day as well as many other ranges.

Even assuming that Everest wasn't there (which is ridiculous, it was there 5,000 years ago) in it's current capacity there'd have been other ones probably just as tall.

Although that's a moot point because plate tectonics didn't suddenly move everything 5,000 years ago and the amount of water to cover the earth doesn't exist.

But you're right, we're the blind ones for not believing that.

joebaseball wrote:

I am by no means an expert on this, just asking a question. If they 4 families traveled to remote areas and then had kids and their kids mated with others from the same offspring wouldn't it basically be incest and then result in genetic issues, both mental and physical?

Whether you believe in creation or evolution this problem exists.

Even in evolution there eventually had to be just two modern humans who had kids, and their kids had to mate with each other to further the species.

Two things...

1. Having kids with your relatives doesn't guarantee birth problems, it just raises the chances.

2. There are studies out there about the diversity/mutations in our genetic code over generations that show that as each generation goes by the problems with incestial birth defects increases. So one could fathom that thousands of years ago the chances were pretty slim.

Now, again, if you believe the Bible, God also knew this and eventually after a few generations made rules with the Jews with regards to incest.

Tinkertrain wrote: The problem with Young Earth Creationism is that the idea of it sounds so damn rediculious to your average rational semi intelligent human being that it is dismissed on the spot. There is plenty of evidence that points towards design but trying to convince people that young earth creationism is fact is almost certainly a loosing battle especially when the vast majority of the scientific data says otherwise.

Much stronger case to be made for old earth creationism.

You might want to see my discussions on the problems with radiometric dating techniques on the politics board discussion about this topic from awhile ago.

I'm not saying young Earth can be proven, I'm saying that the scientific "facts" that say the Earth is billions of years old aren't facts, they are misrepresented calculations.

I would also think of myself as at least "semi-intelligent", and there are many PhD scientists who happen to not believe in billions of years from geologists to astrophysicists.

I Wear Pants wrote:
This is so dumb.

You realize that other mountain ranges were taller back in the day too? The Appalachians would be significantly larger than present day as well as many other ranges.

Even assuming that Everest wasn't there (which is ridiculous, it was there 5,000 years ago) in it's current capacity there'd have been other ones probably just as tall.

Although that's a moot point because plate tectonics didn't suddenly move everything 5,000 years ago and the amount of water to cover the earth doesn't exist.

But you're right, we're the blind ones for not believing that.

Good Lord, is google that hard?

I've stated his name at least 3 times on this thread. The man most scientists believe to be the world leader in plate tectonic computer modeling, Dr. John Baumgartner came up with modern science's best 3D world plate tectonic model.

The model also shows EXACTLY how the plates could have shifted in short time about 5000 years ago, in days/years instead of millions of years.

He's smarter than everyone on this board in the field of plate tectonics, and he says its possible....yet the people on this board "well that's just rediculous" like they know more about plate tectonics than he does?

Hey, at least when it comes to radiometric dating, while I show the flaws in it, I'm willing to say "I can't prove scientifically one way or the other". You guys are just hilarious at your blind dismissals without looking at the evidence.

Odd, Christians are the ones usually labed as "closed minded" when the only one on this thread willing to say "I can't say for sure yes or no, scientifically" is the Bible believing young Earth creationist.

Anything is "possible"...especially when it comes to religious whackos.

I read and watch a lot about plate tectonics, but i've never heard of this so called "expert", and when I googled him he came up under that answersingenesis site...where all the rest of your so called "experts" also reside.

ManO'War wrote: Anything is "possible"...especially when it comes to religious whackos.

I read and watch a lot about plate tectonics, but i've never heard of this so called "expert", and when I googled him he came up under that answersingenesis site...where all the rest of your so called "experts" also reside.

Look deeper, his model named "Terra" is widely respected as the best in the field. It was published in peer reviewed journals and acclaimed, etc.

His work was referenced many times at Answers in Genesis, but he doesn't, to my knowledge, directly work for them.

I love your "I know everything" attitude though. You do realize that Answers in Genesis (the group) is mainly made up of PhD scientists in fields like astrophysics, geophysics, biology, etc right? Its not like they are a group of everyday evangelicals making stuff up out of their rear end.

jmog wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Anything is "possible"...especially when it comes to religious whackos.

I read and watch a lot about plate tectonics, but i've never heard of this so called "expert", and when I googled him he came up under that answersingenesis site...where all the rest of your so called "experts" also reside.

Look deeper, his model named "Terra" is widely respected as the best in the field. It was published in peer reviewed journals and acclaimed, etc.

His work was referenced many times at Answers in Genesis, but he doesn't, to my knowledge, directly work for them.

I love your "I know everything" attitude though. You do realize that Answers in Genesis (the group) is mainly made up of PhD scientists in fields like astrophysics, geophysics,biology, etc right? Its not like they are a group of everyday evangelicals making stuff up out of their rear end.

They are worse, since like you, they are trying to use their degrees to pass thi crap off as real scientific work, when all it is, is them trying to convince gullible people that these fairytales are plausible.

Nobody seems to have enough sources for even Wikipedia to consider him notable. The article on him is under fire for lack of referenced materials. I see nothing to support the claim that his model is accepted as the best. Sounds like the only place he's considered notable is AnswersInGenesis. While they have actual scientists on staff, those scientists are in a VAST minority.

ManO'War wrote:

They are worse, since like you, they are trying to use their degrees to pass thi crap off as real scientific work, when all it is, is them trying to convince gullible people that these fairytales are plausible.

You just described evolutionary biologists to a "T"...amazing how that works both ways.

The difference is, those at AiG are saying that the science says that young earch creationism is plausible/possible (like you said). The evolutionary biologists spew their stuff as fact and like you, laugh at anyone who disagrees like they are some all knowing human being.

The climate scientists have done the same thing for decades, look how that is turning out.

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Nobody seems to have enough sources for even Wikipedia to consider him notable. The article on him is under fire for lack of referenced materials. I see nothing to support the claim that his model is accepted as the best. Sounds like the only place he's considered notable is AnswersInGenesis. While they have actual scientists on staff, those scientists are in a VAST minority.

Yeah, wikipedia...boy, googling his name and coming up with a list of publications was really hard, you might need to go past just wikipedia next time.

Here's a list of some selected peer reviewed publications of Dr. Baumgardner.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism,
R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.


J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and S. A. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

D. R. Stegman, A.M. Jellinek, S. A. Zatman, J. R. Baumgardner, and M. A. Richards, "An early lunar core dynamo driven by thermochemical mantle convection," Nature, 421, 143-146, 2003.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood," "Dealing carefully with the data," and "A constructive quest for truth," all contributions to a "Forum on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics," Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 16, Vol. 1, 57-85, 2002.
( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/16n1p57Forum.asp )

H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle-circulation models with sequential data assimilation: inferring present-day mantle structure from plate-motion histories," Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A., 360, 2545-2567, 2002. ( http://matilde.ingentaselect.com/vl=7250337/cl=17/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=1364503x(2002)L.2545 )

D. A. Randall, T. D. Ringler, R. P. Heikes, P. Jones, and J. Baumgardner, "Climate Modeling with Spherical Geodesic Grids," Computing in Science and Engineering, 4(5), 32-41, 2002.

C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Survival of impact-induced thermal anomalies in the Martian mantle," J. Geophys. Res.- Planets, 107(10), 5082-5092, 2002.

D. Majewski, D. Liermann, P. Prohl, B. Ritter, M. Buchhold, T. Hanisch, G. Paul, W. Wergen, and J. Baumgardner, "The global icosahedral-hexagonal grid point model GME: Operational version and high resolution tests," Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 319-338, 2002. ( http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=0027-0644&volume=130&issue=02&page=0319 )

M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The role of a low viscosity zone in stabilizing plate tectonics: implications for comparative terrestrial planetology," Geochem., Geophys., Geosys., 2, 2001.
( http://g-cubed.org/publicationsfinal/articles/2000GC000115/fs2000GC000115.html )

J. R. Baumgardner, "Distribution of Radioactive Isotopes in the Earth" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creation Research Initiative, Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, editors, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 49-94, 2000.

J. K. Dukowicz and J. R. Baumgardner, Incremental remapping as a transport/advection algorithm," J. Comp. Phys., 160, 318-335, 2000.
( http://sciserver.lanl.gov/pdflinks/03062609531420435--journals--00219991--v160i0001--318_iraata.pdf )

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection," Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 92, 151-195, 2000.

H. R. Wenk, J. R. Baumgardner, C. N. Tome, and R. Lebensohn, "A deformation model to explain anisotropy of the inner core," J. Geophys. Res., 105, 5663-5677, 2000.

M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection and plate motion history: Toward general circulation models," History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions, AGU Monograph Series, 1999.

M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, Y. Ricard, and J.R. Baumgardner, "Polar wandering in mantle convection models," Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1777-1780, 1999.

J. R. Baumgardner and W.-S. Yang, "Earthlike mantle convection from relatively simple rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F26, 1999.

M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The effectiveness of finite yield stress in obtaining platelike surface velocities," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F962, 1999.

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Feasibility of the lava lamp model for the Earth's mantle," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F941, 1999.

D. R. Stegman, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "A parallel implementation of Lagrangian tracers in TERRA," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F950, 1999.

C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Impacts and the thermal evolution of Mars," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F618, 1999.

John R. Baumgardner, Mark A. Richards, Woo-Sun Yang, and Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "3-D Spherical Models of Plate Motion With Laterally Varying Rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 79, (1998 Fall Meeting Supplement), F911, 1998.

H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. R. Baumgardner, S. P. Grand, and B. A. Romanowicz, "Time scales and heterogeneity structure in geodynamic earth models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "A sensitivity study of 3-D spherical mantle convection at 108 Rayleigh number: effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change," J. Geophys. Res., 102, B6, 11991-12007, 1997.

John R. Baumgardner and Woo-Sun Yang, "A finite element multigrid formulation for variable viscosity in 3-D spherical geometry," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 77, (Fall Meeting Supplement), F750, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge and John R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection modeling on parallel virtual machines," Computers in Physics, 9, 207-215, 1995.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Thermal runaway in the mantle" (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 687, 1994.

S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K. P. Wise, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 609-621, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics Associated with the Genesis Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 49-62, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 63-75, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner and D. W. Barnette, "Patterns of Ocean Circulation over the Continents During Noah's Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 77-86, 1994.

D. B. Kothe, J. R. Baumgardner, J. H. Cerutti, B. J. Daly, K. S. Holian, E. M. Kober, S. J. Mosso, J. W. Painter, R. D. Smith, and M. D. Torrey, "PAGOSA: A massively-parallel, multi-material hydrodynamics model for three-dimensional high-speed flow and high-rate material deformation," Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on High Performance Computing: Grand Challenges in Computer Simulation, Society for Computer Simulation, 9-14, 1993.

John R. Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," in Flow and Creep in the Solar System: Observations, Modeling, and Theory, D. B. Stone and S. K. Runcorn, eds., NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 391, 207-224, 1993.

John Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 73, 1992 Fall Meeting Abstract Volume, 576-577, 1992.

M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, J. Baumgardner, M. G. Kivelson, and D. A. Paige, "Io's volcanic and sublimation atmospheres," Icarus, 93, 63-81, 1991.

John R. Baumgardner, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The Physics of the Planets, S. K. Runcorn, ed., John Wiley and Sons, 199-231, 1988.

J. Baumgardner, M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, and M. G. Kivelson, "Two classes of volcanic eruptions and their corresponding atmospheres on Io," Bull. Am. Astr. Assoc., 19(3), 856, 1987.

John R. Baumgardner, "Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the earth's mantle," J. Stat. Phys., 39, 501-511, 1985.

John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Icosahedral discretization of the two-sphere," SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 22, 1107-1115, 1985.

Peter Bird and John Baumgardner, "Fault friction, regional stress, and crust-mantle coupling in southern California from finite element models," J. Geophys. Res., 89, No. B3, 1932-1944, 1984.

John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Three-dimensional treatment of mantle convection," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 63, 1105, 1982.

jmog wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:
This is so dumb.

You realize that other mountain ranges were taller back in the day too? The Appalachians would be significantly larger than present day as well as many other ranges.

Even assuming that Everest wasn't there (which is ridiculous, it was there 5,000 years ago) in it's current capacity there'd have been other ones probably just as tall.

Although that's a moot point because plate tectonics didn't suddenly move everything 5,000 years ago and the amount of water to cover the earth doesn't exist.

But you're right, we're the blind ones for not believing that.

Good Lord, is google that hard?

I've stated his name at least 3 times on this thread. The man most scientists believe to be the world leader in plate tectonic computer modeling, Dr. John Baumgartner came up with modern science's best 3D world plate tectonic model.

The model also shows EXACTLY how the plates could have shifted in short time about 5000 years ago, in days/years instead of millions of years.

He's smarter than everyone on this board in the field of plate tectonics, and he says its possible....yet the people on this board "well that's just rediculous" like they know more about plate tectonics than he does?

Hey, at least when it comes to radiometric dating, while I show the flaws in it, I'm willing to say "I can't prove scientifically one way or the other". You guys are just hilarious at your blind dismissals without looking at the evidence.

Odd, Christians are the ones usually labed as "closed minded" when the only one on this thread willing to say "I can't say for sure yes or no, scientifically" is the Bible believing young Earth creationist.

But the fucking flood is still impossible. How's that dude explain that?

I Wear Pants wrote:
But the fucking flood is still impossible. How's that dude explain that?

Impossible by your opinion, not impossible by scientific fact.

The difference there is huge.

Read some of his stuff, its quite intriguing even for a non-believer if you enjoy scientific papers.

jmog wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Nobody seems to have enough sources for even Wikipedia to consider him notable. The article on him is under fire for lack of referenced materials. I see nothing to support the claim that his model is accepted as the best. Sounds like the only place he's considered notable is AnswersInGenesis. While they have actual scientists on staff, those scientists are in a VAST minority.

Yeah, wikipedia...boy, googling his name and coming up with a list of publications was really hard, you might need to go past just wikipedia next time.

Here's a list of some selected peer reviewed publications of Dr. Baumgardner.

SNIP

You missed the point. Scientists as well-known as you claim him to be don't have issues on their Wikipedia pages with notability. If his theories were as groundbreaking in the field as you claim, there would be more about him than a Wikipedia page questioning his notability or a bunch of pages from AnswersInGenesis. Every Ph.D has peer reviews. A bunch of peer reviews don't make one's claims widely accepted.

[size=xx-large]o shit!![/size]

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

You missed the point. Scientists as well-known as you claim him to be don't have issues on their Wikipedia pages with notability. If his theories were as groundbreaking in the field as you claim, there would be more about him than a Wikipedia page questioning his notability or a bunch of pages from AnswersInGenesis. Every Ph.D has peer reviews. A bunch of peer reviews don't make one's claims widely accepted.

Again, your proof is wikipedia...

I can name many PhD scientists who are big in their field that don't even have a wikipedia page.

jmog wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:
But the fucking flood is still impossible. How's that dude explain that?

Impossible by your opinion, not impossible by scientific fact.

The difference there is huge.

Read some of his stuff, its quite intriguing even for a non-believer if you enjoy scientific papers.

The flood is impossible by fact. There is not the amount of water in the world to cover the earth.

I Wear Pants wrote:
The flood is impossible by fact. There is not the amount of water in the world to cover the earth.

1. I've already talked about how most likely the tallest mountains diddn't exist.

2. Why is it that some people believe the world oceans will rise by like 20 feet if the ice caps keep melting, meaning world wide floods, but when you include that water, the underground water, and all of the water in the atmosphere (clouds, etc) all the sudden the same person says its impossible?

3. You say its impossible by fact, so show me how you know there isn't enough water in the world to cover it?

Oh, and doing the quick math as bigred suggested, the Earth's total hydrosphere (1.4x10^18 tonnes) if it all was liquid water, on the land at one time, could technically reach up to over 3.4 miles, or almost 18k feet.

Now granted, this assumes the plate tectonics model is correct and the ocean wasn't near as deep then as it is now, and the mountains weren't obviously as tall as they are now.

However, doing the quick calc as bigred asked, the total hydrosphere would create about 340 million cubic miles of water, and doing the difference in sphere volumes you get about 3.4 miles deep.

There were other mountains and the oceans were in different places. The entire elevation of the earth wasn't lower.