Conquer Club

universalchiro wrote: waauw,
I'm alone in this theory. Here is my hypothesis: The earth had weaker gravity before the flood and greater oxygen concentration before the flood. As a result of the flood: gravity was increased approximately 25% and oxygen was decreased approximately 50%.

Here are the facts:
A. Oxygen:
1. Amber bubbles that have captured atmosphere concentration in the past, scientist have determined oxygen concentration was higher when the sap oozed out of the tree, captured the oxygen and then petrified.
2. Glacier core samples have also revealed that in the past, atmosphere oxygen concentration was 50% higher than today's value.
3. Science has grown insects in hypoxia and hyperoxia to determine if variations in oxygen concentration effect or affected life. Their findings was substantially yes. Hypoxia environments resulted in smaller insects as a whole. Those that had no size change, had enlarged tracheal tubules to bring in higher volumes of air, which provided less room for other organs. the result of enlarged tracheal tubes and smaller other tissue, was smaller muscles, smaller tendons, smaller organs. Which means the insects ran slower, less endurance, less thriving of life. Conversely, the insects grown in hyperoxia, were larger. those that had same size, had smaller tracheal tubules and larger other tissues, so they ran faster, longer, equaling a thriving life.
4. Humans suffer from a whole host of ailments associated with lack or loss of oxygen. From ischemia, necrosis, pale, lethargic, heart attack, death, etc. This is corroborated in the Bible Leviticus 17:11 "life is in the blood". Blood carries oxygen. And God breathed life into the living: Genesis 2:7,. So life thrives with more oxygen, and life suffers with a lack of oxygen.

universalchiro wrote:B. Gravity:
1. Some dinosaurs weighed 100 tons. Their porous bone structure would not be able to sustain such massive tonnage in this current earth's gravitational system. But scientist observe the porous bone structure of dinosaurs and compare that to similar porous bone structures of birds and assume dinosaurs evolved into birds. After all, both lay eggs. But dinos layed leather eggs and birds lay calcium shelled eggs, wholly different.
2. Astronauts that spend a great deal of time in space will lose bone density/mass. One study of an astronaut one year in space lost 14% bone mass.
3. If one gains a lot of weight, bone density will increase to handle the load.
4a. Moon's gravity causes 2 ocean tides per day. Each ocean tide, takes angular momentum out of the earth's rotational velocity. Each reduction in the earth's angular momentum, reduces centripetal force thereby increasing the net effect of gravity, though the mass of the earth had not changed.
4b. The moon uses this energy from the earth's angular momentum to move away from the earth at 3inches per year. Which means as we go back in time, the moon was closer and thereby took more angular momentum out the earth's spin. Which means the moon slowed the earth's spin exponentially greater in past millenniums.
5. Space dust adds 80,000lbs to the earth's mass each year, increasing earth's mass.
6. Each impacting asteroid and comet on the earth (only the very large ones), takes away angular momentum from the earth's spin velocity and does the same as B4.

• change in volume: This theory requires the earth to cool down. However current knowledge of materials and earth composition requires many millions of years for our planet to cool down, which of course doesn't agree with your view of the earth only being a couple of thousand years old.
• change in mass: Where would all that mass have come from? The amount of space dust every year is way too small for this and a giant asteroid of enough size hitting the earth would have killed not only the dinosaurs but us too(according to you humans and dinosaurs once lived on earth together). Where do you explain the extra mass coming from?

universalchiro wrote:C. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Reptiles will grow as long as they are alive.

universalchiro wrote:D. Non-observable evidence, based on faith and deductive reasoning, this is not proven but a theory:
1. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." At this point in time the universe was extremely small. How do we know this? Job 9:8, Jeremiah 51:15, clarify God stretched out the heavens. Why is this important? Well this is in harmony with science finding the universe is still expanding, meaning at one point it was small in size. Also, waters is in plural form: This could mean massive volume, but also simply that water existed in gas, liquid and solid state. How is this possible? Since the universe was densely packed, this would increase pressure and thereby reduce the freezing point. Also, if the waters had a high alkaline concentration (Na, Ca, P, Mg, Cl,etc), this would also reduce the freezing point. therefore allow waters to remain in 3 states (liquid, gas, solid).

2. Genesis 1:6- "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. There was evening and there was morning, a second day." There were two expanses created, for later the name of the expanse, heaven, is in plural form. The first expanse becomes our atmosphere, the second expanse becomes space where all the galaxies reside. So this verse indicates there was an opening in the middle of water that became our atmosphere. How can we be sure there were more than one expanse? Paul was caught up to the "3rd heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. So the first heaven is our atmosphere, with waters below and waters above. the second heaven is the universe, the third heaven is either distally beyond the universe or within our universe in a higher dimension (unknown). This 1st heaven/atmosphere/expanse is important to our gravity. How? The waters below the expanse become the seas in verse 9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas". The waters above the expanse stayed there until the global flood of Genesis 7.

3. Waters above the atmosphere would increase atmospheric pressure. This increased atmospheric pressure would create a buoyancy effect, thereby reducing the net effect of gravity without changing the mass of the earth.

4. When the global flood came and rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would increase the mass of the earth, thusly increasing gravity.

5. Prior to the flood: There was a canopy of water surrounding the earth, which created a green house effect.
a1. Ambient global temperatures: Genesis 3 "Adam and Eve were naked", no one is naked unless the temperatures are ambient..
a2. Ambient global temperatures: would mean no wind: Genesis 8: After the flood, massive polar ice caps formed.. Verse 1 "God caused a wind to pass over the earth".
a3. With Ambient global temperatures: There would be no wind, therefore no hydrological cycle and no rain: Genesis 2:5b "...For the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground". The only way this would be possible if the water tablet in the ground was high, essentially massive amounts of water underground: Genesis 7:11b "...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights". So not only did it rain, but water burst out of the earth from massive water caverns.

6. With a canopy of water surrounding the earth, before the global flood, the oceans would be much smaller, which means more land would be usable for vegetation and allow more production of oxygen. After the flood, there would be polar ice caps, desert because no ambient temperatures and massive oceans covering useful land. Hence oxygen drops by 50%.

6. Prior to the flood, the seas were not as deep as today, the mountains were not as high as today, the massive catastrophe of water bursting out of the earth in Genesis 7:11 caused great tectonic shifting.

7. As a result of the canopy of water coming down on earth, this highly alkaline water, to keep in liquid form while hovering around our atmosphere, would kill off a great deal of aquatic based behemoths that couldn't adapt to the change from fresh water to salt water. Potentially explains how water based dinosaurs died.

8. This massive amount of water coming down to earth in the global flood, would increase earth's gravity and decrease earth's oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. Paleontologist determine that dinosaurs nostril and lung capacity could not sustain them in today's oxygen concentration. Ergo, when dinos lived oxygen was higher, the flood sending that much water to form massive oceans, and the loss of the canopy of water equaled a loss of ambient global temperatures, resulting in polar ice caps and deserts, further reducing vegetation, further reducing oxygen production.

Summary: A global flood, explains the reduction of oxygen concentration and the increase in gravity.
The moon's gravity also increases earth's gravity (see Gravity: 4a & 4b)
That before the flood earth's gravity was 25% weaker, is an approximation.
that before the flood, oxygen concentration was 50% higher, is an approximation.

• Where did all the water of the flood dissapear to?
• Do you have any other proof than the Bible that there was this massive amount of water over and around our athmosphere?
• Do you have proof that the moon moves away fast enough to have created such drastic changes in gravity?(even in combination with water) do you have proof of the math?

universalchiro wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?

At first I took this post as a compliment. But your responses revealed the error in your thinking. The focus is not on me personally, but the theory stated prior. Your question is illogical for several reasons:
1. You are basing whether you value what I say on my education, this would be appropriate if I was running for public office or was a mechanic preparing to work on your car and you were relying on my credentials to determine future outcomes that directly or indirectly effect you. But the information is past, viewable and my future performance is not applicable on what was already stated in the prior post. The prior post stands alone and needs not my credentials to validate. For even out of the mouth of babes will come profound wisdom at times. And the most recognized erudite can be a fool.

2. I don't want to boast in myself to validate the theory, but my education is in the top 1.4% of the world population. Which is to say, I have more education than 98.6% of the populatin. And I graduated with honors in the top 5% of my class. But your reasoning for asking this question is flawed, you are determining whether to value my theory based on my background, but then by your logic, you would be unqualified to even pose a question to me, since your background is not a peer to me.

3. The theory I stated is not about me, it's about evidence and deductive reasoning that supports a Biblical model of the creation account and flood account in Genesis. So your direction of focusing on me, doesn't relate to the thread topic of "post any evidence for God here". Which I did. So please stay on topic and move away from personal attacks to evidence, logic, facts, science, physics and deduction. Thank you.

But let's set your flawed red herring question aside, for you didn't realize the error in your logic. But I'm proud of you for you have graduated from one liner statements that add nothing to the debate, to posing questions to learn.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?

At first I took this post as a compliment. But your responses revealed the error in your thinking. The focus is not on me personally, but the theory stated prior. Your question is illogical for several reasons:
1. You are basing whether you value what I say on my education, this would be appropriate if I was running for public office or was a mechanic preparing to work on your car and you were relying on my credentials to determine future outcomes that directly or indirectly effect you. But the information is past, viewable and my future performance is not applicable on what was already stated in the prior post. The prior post stands alone and needs not my credentials to validate. For even out of the mouth of babes will come profound wisdom at times. And the most recognized erudite can be a fool.

2. I don't want to boast in myself to validate the theory, but my education is in the top 1.4% of the world population. Which is to say, I have more education than 98.6% of the populatin. And I graduated with honors in the top 5% of my class. But your reasoning for asking this question is flawed, you are determining whether to value my theory based on my background, but then by your logic, you would be unqualified to even pose a question to me, since your background is not a peer to me.

3. The theory I stated is not about me, it's about evidence and deductive reasoning that supports a Biblical model of the creation account and flood account in Genesis. So your direction of focusing on me, doesn't relate to the thread topic of "post any evidence for God here". Which I did. So please stay on topic and move away from personal attacks to evidence, logic, facts, science, physics and deduction. Thank you.

But let's set your flawed red herring question aside, for you didn't realize the error in your logic. But I'm proud of you for you have graduated from one liner statements that add nothing to the debate, to posing questions to learn.

Since you lack the required knowledge, then anyone is reasonably justified in ignoring your position. You may as well be a crazy homeless person raving about designing a better B-52. Being top 5% of whatever doesn't mean much. You could be the top 5 Theologian and still lack the required knowledge about the subject matter. Clearly, a powerful mind such as yourself could realize this, but if so, why bring up #2? Herp Derp derp.

Anyway, your "theological science" is cute; just don't mistaken it for real science.

chang50 wrote:

john9blue wrote:then why continue to post?

i have never seen a theist degrade to sarcasm and ad-hominem, whereas probably 3/4 of the atheists on this forum will do so. why do you guys think that is? i thought atheists could have compassion and a moral compass?

Actually I would prefer sarcasm and ad hominem to the threats of eternal suffering and pain theists spew out regularly.But the most objectionable thing is the sort of condescension typified in your last sentence,assuming the high moral ground with no justification,thats what really boils my piss.

AndyDufresne wrote:Your science seems to leave out variables that affect the speed of the moon receding away, namely the shape of the Earth (which has slightly changed over time), in addition to affect of landmasses moving around Earth affecting the pull of the tides which influences the tug and pull, and probably other things I don't remember from old college courses.

I also rarely trust anyone that starts something with: "It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the doctrine of evolution. "

One thing I am curious, lets step outside the Earth-Moon system. Is the age data we have for other planetary bodies and satellites, in addition to the sun, also covered by your 'young science'?


--Andy

john9blue wrote: i'm not personally assuming the moral high ground ITT because i'm terrible at following the 10 commandments...

also, you need to put yourself in their shoes and understand that they aren't "threatening you" with eternal suffering... if you genuinely thought that nonbelievers would suffer forever, then wouldn't you try (with genuinely compassionate intent) to get others to avoid that fate? you only see it as a threat because you're convinced it can't happen.

universalchiro wrote:The points build and add on each other. Sure no single one point is sufficient alone, but that wasn't the theory. The theory is that the spinning earth is slowing, because of the moon. So going backwards in time, the earth spun faster. This creates a centripetal force and partially nullifies gravity, not fully, but fractionally. Then add to that the canopy of water around the atmosphere creates a buoyancy which partially nullifies gravity, not fully, but fractionally. Then add to that space dust and comet and asteroid impacts, which adds to the earth's mass and increases gravity, not a lot, but fractionally. Then add the energy of the asteroid and comet impacts that would slow the earth's spin, not a lot, but fractionally, and this would reduce centripetal force thereby increasing gravity, not a lot, but fractionally. Then add the canopy of water raining on the earth for 40 days & nights, this would add to the mass of the earth and increase gravity. It's the sum total that effects gravity. Not one part. This is clearly written in the prior post.

universalchiro wrote:2. I don't want to boast in myself to validate the theory, but my education is in the top 1.4% of the world population. Which is to say, I have more education than 98.6% of the populatin. And I graduated with honors in the top 5% of my class. But your reasoning for asking this question is flawed, you are determining whether to value my theory based on my background, but then by your logic, you would be unqualified to even pose a question to me, since your background is not a peer to me.

notyou2 wrote:Oh, I thought god was spotted, but I guess not.

waauw wrote:

john9blue wrote: i'm not personally assuming the moral high ground ITT because i'm terrible at following the 10 commandments...

also, you need to put yourself in their shoes and understand that they aren't "threatening you" with eternal suffering... if you genuinely thought that nonbelievers would suffer forever, then wouldn't you try (with genuinely compassionate intent) to get others to avoid that fate? you only see it as a threat because you're convinced it can't happen.

definition of the word "threat" from the oxford dictionary:
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... t?q=threat
==> so it doesn't matter from what perspective you look at it, it's a threat...

waauw wrote:

universalchiro wrote: waauw,
I'm alone in this theory. Here is my hypothesis: The earth had weaker gravity before the flood and greater oxygen concentration before the flood. As a result of the flood: gravity was increased approximately 25% and oxygen was decreased approximately 50%.

Here are the facts:
A. Oxygen:
1. Amber bubbles that have captured atmosphere concentration in the past, scientist have determined oxygen concentration was higher when the sap oozed out of the tree, captured the oxygen and then petrified.
2. Glacier core samples have also revealed that in the past, atmosphere oxygen concentration was 50% higher than today's value.
3. Science has grown insects in hypoxia and hyperoxia to determine if variations in oxygen concentration effect or affected life. Their findings was substantially yes. Hypoxia environments resulted in smaller insects as a whole. Those that had no size change, had enlarged tracheal tubules to bring in higher volumes of air, which provided less room for other organs. the result of enlarged tracheal tubes and smaller other tissue, was smaller muscles, smaller tendons, smaller organs. Which means the insects ran slower, less endurance, less thriving of life. Conversely, the insects grown in hyperoxia, were larger. those that had same size, had smaller tracheal tubules and larger other tissues, so they ran faster, longer, equaling a thriving life.
4. Humans suffer from a whole host of ailments associated with lack or loss of oxygen. From ischemia, necrosis, pale, lethargic, heart attack, death, etc. This is corroborated in the Bible Leviticus 17:11 "life is in the blood". Blood carries oxygen. And God breathed life into the living: Genesis 2:7,. So life thrives with more oxygen, and life suffers with a lack of oxygen.

I have to agree with all of this. Did some research and the evidence does seem to confirm this part

universalchiro wrote:B. Gravity:
1. Some dinosaurs weighed 100 tons. Their porous bone structure would not be able to sustain such massive tonnage in this current earth's gravitational system. But scientist observe the porous bone structure of dinosaurs and compare that to similar porous bone structures of birds and assume dinosaurs evolved into birds. After all, both lay eggs. But dinos layed leather eggs and birds lay calcium shelled eggs, wholly different.
2. Astronauts that spend a great deal of time in space will lose bone density/mass. One study of an astronaut one year in space lost 14% bone mass.
3. If one gains a lot of weight, bone density will increase to handle the load.
4a. Moon's gravity causes 2 ocean tides per day. Each ocean tide, takes angular momentum out of the earth's rotational velocity. Each reduction in the earth's angular momentum, reduces centripetal force thereby increasing the net effect of gravity, though the mass of the earth had not changed.
4b. The moon uses this energy from the earth's angular momentum to move away from the earth at 3inches per year. Which means as we go back in time, the moon was closer and thereby took more angular momentum out the earth's spin. Which means the moon slowed the earth's spin exponentially greater in past millenniums.
5. Space dust adds 80,000lbs to the earth's mass each year, increasing earth's mass.
6. Each impacting asteroid and comet on the earth (only the very large ones), takes away angular momentum from the earth's spin velocity and does the same as B4.

universalchiro wrote:C. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Reptiles will grow as long as they are alive.

can't argue with that

universalchiro wrote:D. Non-observable evidence, based on faith and deductive reasoning, this is not proven but a theory:
1. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." At this point in time the universe was extremely small. How do we know this? Job 9:8, Jeremiah 51:15, clarify God stretched out the heavens. Why is this important? Well this is in harmony with science finding the universe is still expanding, meaning at one point it was small in size. Also, waters is in plural form: This could mean massive volume, but also simply that water existed in gas, liquid and solid state. How is this possible? Since the universe was densely packed, this would increase pressure and thereby reduce the freezing point. Also, if the waters had a high alkaline concentration (Na, Ca, P, Mg, Cl,etc), this would also reduce the freezing point. therefore allow waters to remain in 3 states (liquid, gas, solid).

2. Genesis 1:6- "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. There was evening and there was morning, a second day." There were two expanses created, for later the name of the expanse, heaven, is in plural form. The first expanse becomes our atmosphere, the second expanse becomes space where all the galaxies reside. So this verse indicates there was an opening in the middle of water that became our atmosphere. How can we be sure there were more than one expanse? Paul was caught up to the "3rd heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. So the first heaven is our atmosphere, with waters below and waters above. the second heaven is the universe, the third heaven is either distally beyond the universe or within our universe in a higher dimension (unknown). This 1st heaven/atmosphere/expanse is important to our gravity. How? The waters below the expanse become the seas in verse 9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas". The waters above the expanse stayed there until the global flood of Genesis 7.

3. Waters above the atmosphere would increase atmospheric pressure. This increased atmospheric pressure would create a buoyancy effect, thereby reducing the net effect of gravity without changing the mass of the earth.

4. When the global flood came and rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would increase the mass of the earth, thusly increasing gravity.

5. Prior to the flood: There was a canopy of water surrounding the earth, which created a green house effect.
a1. Ambient global temperatures: Genesis 3 "Adam and Eve were naked", no one is naked unless the temperatures are ambient..
a2. Ambient global temperatures: would mean no wind: Genesis 8: After the flood, massive polar ice caps formed.. Verse 1 "God caused a wind to pass over the earth".
a3. With Ambient global temperatures: There would be no wind, therefore no hydrological cycle and no rain: Genesis 2:5b "...For the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground". The only way this would be possible if the water tablet in the ground was high, essentially massive amounts of water underground: Genesis 7:11b "...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights". So not only did it rain, but water burst out of the earth from massive water caverns.

6. With a canopy of water surrounding the earth, before the global flood, the oceans would be much smaller, which means more land would be usable for vegetation and allow more production of oxygen. After the flood, there would be polar ice caps, desert because no ambient temperatures and massive oceans covering useful land. Hence oxygen drops by 50%.

6. Prior to the flood, the seas were not as deep as today, the mountains were not as high as today, the massive catastrophe of water bursting out of the earth in Genesis 7:11 caused great tectonic shifting.

7. As a result of the canopy of water coming down on earth, this highly alkaline water, to keep in liquid form while hovering around our atmosphere, would kill off a great deal of aquatic based behemoths that couldn't adapt to the change from fresh water to salt water. Potentially explains how water based dinosaurs died.

8. This massive amount of water coming down to earth in the global flood, would increase earth's gravity and decrease earth's oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. Paleontologist determine that dinosaurs nostril and lung capacity could not sustain them in today's oxygen concentration. Ergo, when dinos lived oxygen was higher, the flood sending that much water to form massive oceans, and the loss of the canopy of water equaled a loss of ambient global temperatures, resulting in polar ice caps and deserts, further reducing vegetation, further reducing oxygen production.

Summary: A global flood, explains the reduction of oxygen concentration and the increase in gravity.
The moon's gravity also increases earth's gravity (see Gravity: 4a & 4b)
That before the flood earth's gravity was 25% weaker, is an approximation.
that before the flood, oxygen concentration was 50% higher, is an approximation.

I don't think water is enough to increase the earth's gravity by 25%. Keep in mind that our planet's water is only 0.023% of our planet's mass(http://www.universetoday.com/25822/water-on-earth/). So an increase of 25% seems like an absurdly large amount of water, especially if you consider it's volume. Where would all that water have gone after the great flood? And do you have any proof that the moon was once close enough to earth to cause more such drastic differences in gravity, considering the timespan proclaimed by Bible theorists? The moon doesn't move away fast enough to have done this in only a few thousand years.(I think, not sure about the calculations)

Lastly do you have any other proof than the Bible that there was so much water envelopping around our athmosphere?(I'm not gonna discuss the validity of the Bible again as the discussion didn't go very well in the past)

==> didn't answer the rest of your text as it seemed to be the same as what you already said before, but in more detail. Also sorry if my text is a bit messy, I responded while not having read your entire text(didn't want to read such a vast text twice)

I have to admit, if I sounded condensending before it was due to your theory of increased gravity. Having read this and researching it to confirm it, I have to thank you for enlightening me about this. I had no clue these theories even existed. Though I have one issue that I have about this. The theory of expanding earth is based on the fact that either mass or volume has changed.

• change in volume: This theory requires the earth to cool down. However current knowledge of materials and earth composition requires many millions of years for our planet to cool down, which of course doesn't agree with your view of the earth only being a couple of thousand years old.
• change in mass: Where would all that mass have come from? The amount of space dust every year is way too small for this and a giant asteroid of enough size hitting the earth would have killed not only the dinosaurs but us too(according to you humans and dinosaurs once lived on earth together). Where do you explain the extra mass coming from?

Summary of my questions about your theory:

• Where did all the water of the flood dissapear to?
• Do you have any other proof than the Bible that there was this massive amount of water over and around our athmosphere?
• Do you have proof that the moon moves away fast enough to have created such drastic changes in gravity?(even in combination with water) do you have proof of the math?

The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be constantly promoted to a slightly higher orbit and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation

energy and angular momentum are transferred from the rotation of the Earth to the orbital motion of the Moon (however, most of the energy lost by the Earth (-3.321 TW) is converted to heat by frictional losses in the oceans and their interaction with the solid Earth, and only about 1/30th (+0.121 TW) is transferred to the Moon).

john9blue wrote:

chang50 wrote:

john9blue wrote:then why continue to post?

i have never seen a theist degrade to sarcasm and ad-hominem, whereas probably 3/4 of the atheists on this forum will do so. why do you guys think that is? i thought atheists could have compassion and a moral compass?

Actually I would prefer sarcasm and ad hominem to the threats of eternal suffering and pain theists spew out regularly.But the most objectionable thing is the sort of condescension typified in your last sentence,assuming the high moral ground with no justification,thats what really boils my piss.

universalchiro wrote: Change is volume: You are assuming that the earth cooled over billions of years. Dr. Robert Gentry proved this to be false by his discovery of radioactive halos in granite rock. See early post.http://www.halos.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

• research not verifiable by 3rd parties: As he is a physicist and not a geologist, he did not follow geological protocol so that 3rd parties can verify his research. His research lacks descriptions of the regional geological settings(often because many of his samples were sent to him by other people)
• wrong minerals: In his research any rock looking vaguely like granite and having the label precambrian was considered coming from the Primordial crust. However some of the materials he used weren't even granite but calcite as proven by J. Richard Wakefield.
• recycling primordial crust: There is evidence that the primordial crust was actually very thin and was recycled by plate tectonics(still theory).
• Gentry's model is invalid: here's a quote
  Gentry (1970, 1974), himself, notes a number of aspects about concentric haloes which cannot be explained by the alpha decay hypothesis. Dwarf and giant haloes cannot be reconciled with any known alpha decay energies. Gentry postulates that these anomalous size haloes represent new elements or new forms of alpha decay. Neither explanation seems likely given the current state of knowledge of radioactive elements (ICRP, 1983; Parrington, et al., 1996). Other haloes show "ghost" rings which don't correspond to any measured alpha decay energy, and which remain unexplained. Finally, there are "reversed coloration" haloes, supposed uranium haloes in which the gradation of color intensity in the circular band is opposite to, and the ring diameters offset from, those in a "normal" uranium pattern. Other exceptions to Gentry's energy vs. ring diameter model have been noted by Odom and Rink (1989) and Moazed et al. (1973). Gentry speculates on the cause(s) of some of these anomalous features, but provides no empirical data to support any explanation. Indeed, Gentry appears to be more willing to question the evidence provided by the physical samples than to question the validity of his model.
• etc. there is actually a lot more evidence against his thesis, but if you want to know them just click the first url-source beneath

universalchiro wrote: Change in mass to increase gravity: The earth can have the same mass, but with a canopy of water surrounding the atmosphere, this creates a buoyancy effect. Which means gravity is weaker. Kind of like being in water. In water, there is more pressure: Adding the atmosphere + water surrounding a person in the water = greater pressure = buoyancy. And that is what the canopy of water does. This alone would be sufficient enough to change the gravity enough to allow creatures to grow to massive height.

waauw wrote:

universalchiro wrote: waauw,
I'm alone in this theory. Here is my hypothesis: The earth had weaker gravity before the flood and greater oxygen concentration before the flood. As a result of the flood: gravity was increased approximately 25% and oxygen was decreased approximately 50%.

Here are the facts:
A. Oxygen:
1. Amber bubbles that have captured atmosphere concentration in the past, scientist have determined oxygen concentration was higher when the sap oozed out of the tree, captured the oxygen and then petrified.
2. Glacier core samples have also revealed that in the past, atmosphere oxygen concentration was 50% higher than today's value.
3. Science has grown insects in hypoxia and hyperoxia to determine if variations in oxygen concentration effect or affected life. Their findings was substantially yes. Hypoxia environments resulted in smaller insects as a whole. Those that had no size change, had enlarged tracheal tubules to bring in higher volumes of air, which provided less room for other organs. the result of enlarged tracheal tubes and smaller other tissue, was smaller muscles, smaller tendons, smaller organs. Which means the insects ran slower, less endurance, less thriving of life. Conversely, the insects grown in hyperoxia, were larger. those that had same size, had smaller tracheal tubules and larger other tissues, so they ran faster, longer, equaling a thriving life.
4. Humans suffer from a whole host of ailments associated with lack or loss of oxygen. From ischemia, necrosis, pale, lethargic, heart attack, death, etc. This is corroborated in the Bible Leviticus 17:11 "life is in the blood". Blood carries oxygen. And God breathed life into the living: Genesis 2:7,. So life thrives with more oxygen, and life suffers with a lack of oxygen.

I have to agree with all of this. Did some research and the evidence does seem to confirm this part

universalchiro wrote:B. Gravity:
1. Some dinosaurs weighed 100 tons. Their porous bone structure would not be able to sustain such massive tonnage in this current earth's gravitational system. But scientist observe the porous bone structure of dinosaurs and compare that to similar porous bone structures of birds and assume dinosaurs evolved into birds. After all, both lay eggs. But dinos layed leather eggs and birds lay calcium shelled eggs, wholly different.
2. Astronauts that spend a great deal of time in space will lose bone density/mass. One study of an astronaut one year in space lost 14% bone mass.
3. If one gains a lot of weight, bone density will increase to handle the load.
4a. Moon's gravity causes 2 ocean tides per day. Each ocean tide, takes angular momentum out of the earth's rotational velocity. Each reduction in the earth's angular momentum, reduces centripetal force thereby increasing the net effect of gravity, though the mass of the earth had not changed.
4b. The moon uses this energy from the earth's angular momentum to move away from the earth at 3inches per year. Which means as we go back in time, the moon was closer and thereby took more angular momentum out the earth's spin. Which means the moon slowed the earth's spin exponentially greater in past millenniums.
5. Space dust adds 80,000lbs to the earth's mass each year, increasing earth's mass.
6. Each impacting asteroid and comet on the earth (only the very large ones), takes away angular momentum from the earth's spin velocity and does the same as B4.

I have to admit, if I sounded condensending before it was due to your theory of increased gravity. Having read this and researching it to confirm it, I have to thank you for enlightening me about this. I had no clue these theories even existed. Though I have one issue that I have about this. The theory of expanding earth is based on the fact that either mass or volume has changed.

• change in volume: This theory requires the earth to cool down. However current knowledge of materials and earth composition requires many millions of years for our planet to cool down, which of course doesn't agree with your view of the earth only being a couple of thousand years old.
• change in mass: Where would all that mass have come from? The amount of space dust every year is way too small for this and a giant asteroid of enough size hitting the earth would have killed not only the dinosaurs but us too(according to you humans and dinosaurs once lived on earth together). Where do you explain the extra mass coming from?

universalchiro wrote:C. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Reptiles will grow as long as they are alive.

can't argue with that

universalchiro wrote:D. Non-observable evidence, based on faith and deductive reasoning, this is not proven but a theory:
1. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." At this point in time the universe was extremely small. How do we know this? Job 9:8, Jeremiah 51:15, clarify God stretched out the heavens. Why is this important? Well this is in harmony with science finding the universe is still expanding, meaning at one point it was small in size. Also, waters is in plural form: This could mean massive volume, but also simply that water existed in gas, liquid and solid state. How is this possible? Since the universe was densely packed, this would increase pressure and thereby reduce the freezing point. Also, if the waters had a high alkaline concentration (Na, Ca, P, Mg, Cl,etc), this would also reduce the freezing point. therefore allow waters to remain in 3 states (liquid, gas, solid).

2. Genesis 1:6- "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. There was evening and there was morning, a second day." There were two expanses created, for later the name of the expanse, heaven, is in plural form. The first expanse becomes our atmosphere, the second expanse becomes space where all the galaxies reside. So this verse indicates there was an opening in the middle of water that became our atmosphere. How can we be sure there were more than one expanse? Paul was caught up to the "3rd heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. So the first heaven is our atmosphere, with waters below and waters above. the second heaven is the universe, the third heaven is either distally beyond the universe or within our universe in a higher dimension (unknown). This 1st heaven/atmosphere/expanse is important to our gravity. How? The waters below the expanse become the seas in verse 9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas". The waters above the expanse stayed there until the global flood of Genesis 7.

3. Waters above the atmosphere would increase atmospheric pressure. This increased atmospheric pressure would create a buoyancy effect, thereby reducing the net effect of gravity without changing the mass of the earth.

4. When the global flood came and rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would increase the mass of the earth, thusly increasing gravity.

5. Prior to the flood: There was a canopy of water surrounding the earth, which created a green house effect.
a1. Ambient global temperatures: Genesis 3 "Adam and Eve were naked", no one is naked unless the temperatures are ambient..
a2. Ambient global temperatures: would mean no wind: Genesis 8: After the flood, massive polar ice caps formed.. Verse 1 "God caused a wind to pass over the earth".
a3. With Ambient global temperatures: There would be no wind, therefore no hydrological cycle and no rain: Genesis 2:5b "...For the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground". The only way this would be possible if the water tablet in the ground was high, essentially massive amounts of water underground: Genesis 7:11b "...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights". So not only did it rain, but water burst out of the earth from massive water caverns.

6. With a canopy of water surrounding the earth, before the global flood, the oceans would be much smaller, which means more land would be usable for vegetation and allow more production of oxygen. After the flood, there would be polar ice caps, desert because no ambient temperatures and massive oceans covering useful land. Hence oxygen drops by 50%.

6. Prior to the flood, the seas were not as deep as today, the mountains were not as high as today, the massive catastrophe of water bursting out of the earth in Genesis 7:11 caused great tectonic shifting.

7. As a result of the canopy of water coming down on earth, this highly alkaline water, to keep in liquid form while hovering around our atmosphere, would kill off a great deal of aquatic based behemoths that couldn't adapt to the change from fresh water to salt water. Potentially explains how water based dinosaurs died.

8. This massive amount of water coming down to earth in the global flood, would increase earth's gravity and decrease earth's oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. Paleontologist determine that dinosaurs nostril and lung capacity could not sustain them in today's oxygen concentration. Ergo, when dinos lived oxygen was higher, the flood sending that much water to form massive oceans, and the loss of the canopy of water equaled a loss of ambient global temperatures, resulting in polar ice caps and deserts, further reducing vegetation, further reducing oxygen production.

Summary: A global flood, explains the reduction of oxygen concentration and the increase in gravity.
The moon's gravity also increases earth's gravity (see Gravity: 4a & 4b)
That before the flood earth's gravity was 25% weaker, is an approximation.
that before the flood, oxygen concentration was 50% higher, is an approximation.

...do you have any other proof than the Bible that there was so much water envelopping around our athmosphere?(I'm not gonna discuss the validity of the Bible again as the discussion didn't go very well in the past)

universalchiro wrote: 1. Does The effect of the Moon slowing the earth affect gravity? First let's establish that the moon does slow the earth rotation velocity:

The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be constantly promoted to a slightly higher orbit and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration... Now we need to establish is the moon using 100% of the energy it takes from the earth's spin?

energy and angular momentum are transferred from the rotation of the Earth to the orbital motion of the Moon (however, most of the energy lost by the Earth (-3.321 TW) is converted to heat by frictional losses in the oceans and their interaction with the solid Earth, and only about 1/30th (+0.121 TW) is transferred to the Moon).

So the moon is slowing the earth, but only 1/30th of the energy lost from the earth's spin is noticed by the moon's recession. So the moon moving away from the earth at 3 inches per year is 1/30th of the effect the moon is having on the earth.

Now that we know the moons is slowing the earth, does that affect earth's gravity? In other words, if the earth spun faster would gravity seem weaker? The acceleration of gravity at the poles were there in no loss of gravity to centripetal force is 9.83m/s/s. While the acceleration of gravity at the equators, were there is loss of gravity to centripetal force, because the earth is spinning 1,000mph, is 9.78m/s/s. So there is 0.5% change in gravity resulting from the spin of the earth. Which means a 200lb man would weigh 1lb more at the poles and 1lb less at the equator. This still isn't much, but it does establish a link between the earth's spin velocity and the strength of gravity.

universalchiro wrote:Where did all the water disappear to? This is a fair question. Why? so Bible thumpers want people to believe in the flood that covered the whole earth in water, well then tell me what happened to all this water? This answer is two fold.
1. Before the flood, the mountains were not as tall and the valleys were not as deep (such as the Marianas Trench was not existent). Psalms 104: 6- "You covered earth with the deep [water] as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set the boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth. He sends forth springs in the valleys, They flow between the mountains; They give drink to every beast of the field," The verse points out that after the flood water came from melting snow caps between mountains, which is not how water was dispersed prior to the flood. Genesis 2:6 "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground".
2. As a result of global rain for 40 days and nights in the Genesis 7 flood, and the loss of global ambient temperatures with the loss of the canopy of water, the earth's temperatures reduced significantly. And water froze at the poles.

How much water is at the poles? if the south pole melted, the ocean levels would rise 200 feet. If just Greenland melts, the ocean would rise 7 feet. but if the earth was flat, the ocean level would be 1 mile above ground level. So do we have enough water on earth from a flood? yes.

waauw wrote:

universalchiro wrote: Change is volume: You are assuming that the earth cooled over billions of years. Dr. Robert Gentry proved this to be false by his discovery of radioactive halos in granite rock. See early post.http://www.halos.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

Ok so let me see if I understand what Dr. Robert Gentry says:
He got granites which according to him came from the primordial crust of the earth. Inside of Granite he found radioactive minerals, whom have discolored circles around them(haloes). These were formed due to radiation damage from alpha particles. The diameters of these circles are dependent on the radioactive isotopes. Extrapolating from his discoveries he concluded that the small haloes were caused by the decay of Polonium(Po-128) and as polonium has a very short half life(microseconds to days), he concluded that the earth was formed almost instantaneously and that the earth was young.

universalchiro wrote: Change in mass to increase gravity: The earth can have the same mass, but with a canopy of water surrounding the atmosphere, this creates a buoyancy effect. Which means gravity is weaker. Kind of like being in water. In water, there is more pressure: Adding the atmosphere + water surrounding a person in the water = greater pressure = buoyancy. And that is what the canopy of water does. This alone would be sufficient enough to change the gravity enough to allow creatures to grow to massive height.

Any proof of there having been a canopy of water surounding the atmosphere? Also with that water surrounding the atmosphere, why didn't it fall to earth earlier?

universalchiro wrote: Using the scientific method, I can not test, nor observe that there was a canopy of water. The theory is corroborated with:
1. 20+ cultures around the world that believe there was a great flood. Cultures that don't even accept the Bible, so they have no bias to authenticate the Bible.
2. The Bible states the atmosphere was made with water below that became the seas and water above. But this is a mute point if someone doesn't accept the Bible. I get it.
3. Sea fossils on the tops of mountains. Fossilized clam shells in the closed position, meaning they were buried by the flood while alive, on the top of the Andes Mountains. Huge monolithic fossils. For when clams die, they open up.
http://creation.com/giant-oysters-on-the-mountain

Click image to enlarge.

4. The layers of earth, tell of soil settling according to density from the Flood. Why? Water burst out of the earth for 40 days as well as rain down from above. This water had high turbidity. And the sediment settled according to density.
5. The creatures also settled according to density from the flood. Remember bacterial life caused bloating/buoyancy and those with exoskeletons would remain most dense for resisting bloating.
6. How did aquatic dinosaurs die too? The water that came down needed to be highly alkaline to remain in some liquid form while hovering around the atmosphere. This salty water, laid the salt deposits under the great lakes, the dead sea, oceans, but the fresh watered aquatic life that couldn't adapt, died.

This is not a complete list, but what I could think of on the fly...

The global flood solves a lot of questions. Even the large life. For a canopy of water would provide greater atmospheric pressure, which reduces affect of gravity and allows animals to grow tall.

Outside of some deductions based on what I see. The canopy of water in not testable, nor observable, nor repeatable. So according to the scientific method, it is not acceptable science. but if evolutionist rejects it, and they will, I wish they would apply that same standard to their own belief system that has already been proven to be faith based.

Cheers. PS no worries about any terse or pithy comments. No one is perfect, not even Viceroy and BigBallinStallin! ha ha ha

chang50 wrote: Which is irrelevant to my point.Thinking about it you probably genuinely don't see the condescension in your words,but what would I know not having an equal chance of possessing compassion or a moral compass as my morally superior theist friends?

john9blue wrote:

chang50 wrote: Which is irrelevant to my point.Thinking about it you probably genuinely don't see the condescension in your words,but what would I know not having an equal chance of possessing compassion or a moral compass as my morally superior theist friends?

soooo am i not allowed to make judgments about a group based on what i observe? based on my life experiences and knowledge, atheists are less moral than theists.

keep in mind that this strategy is basically what kept our species alive (that plant is blue! blue plants are poisonous! i'm not going to eat that plant!). it's called using your fucking brain.

it's also what makes the average modern moron cry "discrimination" (that person is black and dressed like a thug! people like that commit way more crime! i'm going to walk on the other side of the street from them!)... but that's a whole different discussion.

john9blue wrote:based on my life experiences and knowledge, atheists are less moral than theists.

waauw wrote: Though I have to admit the fossilized clam shells at the top of the Andes are actually quite remarkable, but this could also be explained if the earth were many millions of years old.

waauw wrote:But if you really think atheists are less moral, than explain to me why there are so many atheist countries doing well on the UN Global Peace Index