Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Just to make this plainly obvious, if 100% of energy is released in heat, then how are mountain ranges lifted up past the force of gravity?

Irrelevant since no one (except Stripe's straw man) has said 100% of energy goes to heat.

Drop a megaton of water on top of tectonic plates, the Darwinist says "Ah! the oceans incinerate!" I thought that was an exaggeration before but seems like an apt criticism now.

Only if you can show where any "Darwinist" actually said that. Otherwise it's just a dishonest straw man.

 

[Jose Fly]

In Stripe's world heat isn't energy. :kookoo:

And Baumgardner's "Thermal Problem" can just be ignored and never thought about.

 

[Silent Hunter]

In the real world heat is only one expression of energy. They aren't exactly the same thing,

Heat isn't energy?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

In Munter's world, energy must be heat. :kookoo:

 

[Silent Hunter]

In Hunter's world, energy must be heat.

... said the king-of-the-strawman.

Energy is measured in joules.
Kinetic energy is measured in joules.
Potential energy is measured in joules.
Work is measured in joules.
Heat is measured in joules.

I detect a pattern. That pattern being Stripe doesn't know what he's talking about. When he gets his degree in physics or engineering then MAYBE he MIGHT be able to speak knowledgably.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

... said the king-of-the-strawman.Energy is measured in joules.Kinetic energy is measured in joules.Potential energy is measured in joules.Work is measured in joules.Heat is measured in joules.I detect a pattern. That pattern being Stripe doesn't know what he's talking about. When he gets his degree in physics or engineering then MAYBE he MIGHT be able to speak knowledgably.Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Clearly, if you know that, you would be able to say why.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Here is Fly declaring that the energy required to raise mountains must have gone into heating water.

Forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans... John Baumgardner ... estimated 10²⁸ joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker.

The simple answer to this is that Fly is in error; the energy used to raise the mountains does not necessarily go into boiling water. In fact almost none of it would. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still raised, remember?

This is such a simple error, yet the Darwinists' policy of zero concessions means we have to go hundreds of posts worth of spam aimed at burying the implied challenge to their precious religion.

As for Munter, he doesn't even know what "could" means. :chuckle:

It's not a fact that "eight people could produce today's population in a few thousand years."

I am perfectly content to concede it COULD happen.

This is why Darwinists are mocked.

:mock: Evolutionists.

And this:

Are you claiming that this is a creationist idea that commands respect?

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists will do anything to move the topic away from a point they think will hurt their precious religion.

Fly made a fundamental error in his commentary on supposed consequences of a release of energy; Darwinists run for the hills when he's called on it.

Are you claiming that this is a creationist idea that commands respect?

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is Fly declaring that the energy required to raise mountains must have gone into heating water.

And where in that did I say 100% of the energy goes to heat?

The simple answer to this is that Fly is in error; the energy used to raise the mountains does not necessarily go into boiling water. In fact almost none of it would. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still raised, remember?

Almost none? Why, just because you say so?

This is such a simple error

Yeah, I agree. The notion that entire continental plates can move around the planet and rapidly subduct without giving off hardly any heat is so ridiculous, it can only have come from young-earth creationists. :rotfl:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Here is Fly declaring that the energy required to raise mountains must have gone into heating water.

Pay attention...it's not my theory, it's yours. And that forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans doesn't come from me, it comes from your fellow creationists, i.e., John Baumgardner who estimated 10²⁸ joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker.

The simple answer to this is that Fly is in error; the energy used to raise the mountains does not necessarily go into boiling water. In fact almost none of it would.

... and your evidence is... notoriously absent... as usual.

The mountains were raised, remember? They are still raised, remember?

Did/Do the mountains just float up on their own? " John Baumgardner who estimated 10²⁸ joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker."

This is such a simple error, yet the Darwinists' policy of zero concessions means we have to go hundreds of posts worth of spam aimed at burying the implied challenge to their precious religion.

What challenge? It was a stupid hypothetical worthy of someone ignorant of physics. Even Cadry could have come up with something better.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

And where in that did I say 100% of the energy goes to heat?

Here is Fly declaring that the energy required to raise mountains must have gone into heating water.

Forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans... John Baumgardner ... estimated 10²⁸ joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker.

Almost none? Why, just because you say so?

The mountains were raised, remember? They are still raised, remember?

And my assertion could be discussed sensibly, as it is possibly correct. It is not correct to assert that the oceans must be boiled away just because enough energy was involved in a process.

You need to retract your challenge and put forward something that is not obviously in error.

The notion that entire continental plates can move around the planet and rapidly subduct without giving off hardly any heat is ... ridiculous.

The mountains were raised, remember? They are still elevated, remember?

And your error is not wrapped up in a percentage of heat that might have been produced; your error is your assertion that the energy involved means the oceans must have boiled away.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is Fly declaring that the energy required to raise mountains must have gone into heating water.

Yeah, except here is what you claimed I said: "Fly made an obvious error in demanding that all the energy mentioned had to go toward cooking water".

So again, where did I say "all the energy" had to go to heat?

And my assertion could be discussed sensibly, as it is possibly correct.

Fine. Baumgardner did the math and concluded there was such a "thermal problem" that it couldn't work without multiple miracles. So let's see your math that shows otherwise.

And your error is not wrapped up in a percentage of heat that might have been produced; your error is your assertion that the energy involved means the oceans must have boiled away.

I've shown one set of calculations (Baumgardner's) that support that conclusion. You've neither shown the error in those, nor have you offered your own calculations that reach a different outcome.

So far all you've done is argue against straw man and make empty, unsupported assertions.

 

[Stuu]

I can actually think of a couple. First - I recall credit being given to Steve Austin for his observations on how trees were observed to sink in Spirit Lake below Mount St. Helens. The second is Lord Kelvin’s idea that thermodynamics could be used to establish the age of the earth. His technique was well thought out, but his answer ultimately turned out to be in error. (But that was because the data available to him was lacking some factors that were not understood in his day.) And of course, Lord Kelvin’s work on the age of the earth made him an old-earth creationist.

Thank you for playing, and for drawing the floating trees to my attention. That is indeed an attractive observation. But I think it would be wrong to give Mr. Austin any credit for either the observation, or any associated idea. I can't find any reference saying that he discovered the trees in Lake Spirit, and his 'idea' seems to be that because some trees can be transported by water and deposited 'upright', that therefore this is evidence for a global flood (correct me if you think I have missed his point). That idea cannot possibly deserve respect, especially coming from someone who cites his own PhD but clearly ignores screeds of the evidence that exists within his field of 'expertise'.

I think if you are going to give Kelvin as an example then we could open the door to anything proposed by Newton and many others. But those are examples of respectable scientific ideas explained by people who were creationist. The thermodynamic age of the earth isn't really a creationist idea. Kelvin may well have made a creationist interpretation of it, but that creationist interpretation doesn't deserve any respect because it's not founded in evidence.

And, as you quite correctly point out, the idea is wrong and has been modified to include radioactive sources of heat within the earth. I think Kelvin would have quite happily ignored radioactivity unless it had been pointed out to him by Rutherford and others, and even then he stuck fast to fixed ideas that fitted his views of how long it was possible for life to have inhabited the planet. Although he made major contributions in electricity and thermodynamics he was in denial about a lot of technology that was about to be invented, most famously radio and X-rays.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

[deleted - lack of basic competence using the buttons below]

 

[Stripe]

Baumgardner did the math and concluded there was such a "thermal problem" that it couldn't work without multiple miracles.

So he made the same error you did? :idunno:

So far all you've done is argue against straw man and make empty, unsupported assertions.

Nope. It is you who is obviously in error. There is no requirement that the energy has to go toward boiling water. The mountains were raised, remember? They are still there, remember?

 

[Jose Fly]

So he made the same error you did?

You haven't shown any error. All you've done is basically say "Nuh uh".

There is no requirement that the energy has to go toward boiling water.

Sorry, but your empty say-so is only meaningful to you. No one else cares.

 

[Stripe]

You haven't shown any error.

Right here:

"Forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans...
John Baumgardner ... estimated 10²⁸ joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough [heat] to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker."

You assumed all those joules had to be heat.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right here:

"Forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans...
John Baumgardner ... estimated 1028 joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough [heat] to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker."

You assumed all those joules had to be heat.

??????????? So in your brain "X joules of heat would be released" is the same as "all energy would go to heat"? :idunno:

 

[Tyrathca]

Right here:

"Forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans...
John Baumgardner ... estimated 1028 joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough [heat] to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker."

You assumed all those joules had to be heat.

Try reading next time. Creationists will do anything to avoid dealing with the evidence.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk