Giant dinosaurs get downsized
gabriel
prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
called fact.
www.livescience.com/animals/090621-dinosaur-size.html
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/27/news-to-note-06272009#two
Dinosaurs: large, terrifying, and surprisingly lightweight?
As far as extinct animals go, dinosaurs are easily the most
widely discussed and inspire the most fascination. The mere word
conjures up images of the menacing carnivore T. rex towering
overhead. But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep-which makes the
logistics of fitting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark all the easier.
Now, two new studies suggest that previous calculations of
dinosaurs' weight may have been on the heavy end. The scientists
conclude that some dinosaurs were only half as heavy as was
previously thought. For instance, the well-known Apatosaurus
(which LiveScience describes as "behemoth," a word used in the
Bible in Job 40:15!) was previously estimated to have weighed in
at 42 tons (38 t) but by the new calculation is estimated at 20
tons (18 t).
What tipped off Colorado State University's Gary Packard and
Thomas Boardman along with George Mason University's Geoffrey
Birchard was a test of the older calculations on living animals.
The resulting tests estimated elephants, for instance, at far
heavier than their true mass.
And downsizing dinosaurs' weights could have long-reaching
consequences. Birchard explained, "Think about an animal that
big-they would have had to have certain amounts of muscle to move
their mass If their mass is lower, the amount of muscle they
would have had to have is significantly less. The amount of
oxygen they would need could be interpreted to be much less
because there's much less tissue to supply with oxygen."
He continued, "They were still huge animals, I don't think anyone
would dispute that. They might be half as big, but half of
something that's really huge is still really huge." A recently
found allosaurus tooth-nearly 4 inches (10 cm) long-corroborates
that.
Creationists have already answered logistical questions about how
Noah could fit dinosaur representatives onto the Ark. For one
thing, not all species of dinosaur needed to be on board, but
instead only two of every dinosaur kind (a taxonomic group
roughly equivalent to the family designation). For another thing,
he could have easily brought juvenile dinosaurs that were less
than their full (adult) size.
Finally, as noted above, the average size of all dinosaurs is
estimated (based on fossils) to have been about like that of a
sheep. The discovery that scientists have overestimated
dinosaurs' weight (and perhaps, consequently, their necessary
muscle mass) further increases the plausibility of dinosaurs on
Noah's Ark.
=====================================================
Some dinosaurs were the largest creatures ever to walk on land,
including the classic long-necked, whip-tailed Diplodicus, but a
new study suggests it and its many extinct brethren weighed as
little as half as much as previously thought.
A new equation for calculating dinosaur mass based on skeletons
found that scientists have been overestimating the girth of many
dinosaurs. In some cases, the new calculations show that certain
dinosaurs probably weighed about half what they were thought to
weigh.
"They were still huge animals, I don't think anyone would dispute
that," said Geoffrey Birchard, a biologist at George Mason
University in Virginia, and co-author of a paper published this
week in the Journal of Zoology describing the new equation. "They
might be half as big, but half of something that's really huge is
still really huge."
For example, the behemoth Apatosaurus louisae, one of the largest
of the dinosaurs, has been widely cited as weighing about 42 tons
(38,000 kg). According to the new equation, these creatures
actually weighed about 20 tons (18,000 kg), or less than half
earlier estimates. Some other examples of old mass estimates
compared to new:
Giraffatitan brancai (Brachiosaurus) - old: 35 tons (32,000 kg);
new: 18 tons (16,000 kg)
Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis - old: 32 tons (29,000 kg); new: 17
tons (15,000 kg)
Styracosaurus albertensis - old: 4.6 tons (4,200 kg); new: 3.6
tons (3,300 kg)
Diplodocus sp. - old: 6.1 tons (5,500 kg); new: 4.4 tons (4,000
kg)
Birchard and collaborators Gary Packard and Thomas Boardman of
Colorado State University realized there was something wrong with
the original equation when they used it to calculate the weight
of living animals, such as elephants, and found that it
drastically overestimated their mass.
The scientists devised a new statistical model that can more
accurately predict the mass of an animal based on the width of
its bones.
"I like to explain it as a building that's built on pillars,"
Birchard told LiveScience. "The pillars have to get bigger around
to get stronger to support a larger building. Well, the legs of
an animal are the same thing, just pillars supporting the body."
Another paper published last year in the journal Fossil Record
used a different technique for estimating body mass, but
calculated similar results to those of Birchard's team. That
study was led by Hanns-Christian Gunga of the
Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
If the new mass estimates are more reliable, they could have
implications for understanding not just the weight of dinosaurs,
but their whole biology.
"Think about an animal that big - they would have had to have
certain amounts of muscle to move their mass," Birchard said. "If
their mass is lower, the amount of muscle they would have had to
have is significantly less. The amount of oxygen they would need
could be interpreted to be much less because there's much less
tissue to supply with oxygen."
Some studies suggest that dinosaur bones, like bird bones, had
air cavities that made them lighter than they would appear. This
feature could help explain how dinosaurs could weigh so much less
than once thought.
Tim Miller
> Finally, as noted above, the average size of all dinosaurs is
> estimated (based on fossils) to have been about like that of a
> sheep. The discovery that scientists have overestimated
> dinosaurs' weight (and perhaps, consequently, their necessary
> muscle mass) further increases the plausibility of dinosaurs on
> Noah's Ark.
>
BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
(Whew!) You pinheads are certainly ENTERTAINING this
morning!
BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
wf3h
> Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration),
the exaggeration is on your part because such errors do not happen
generally with radioisotope dating. you seem not to know how the
method works.
now by
> the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
> people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
> called fact.
>
> www.livescience.com/animals/090621-dinosaur-size.html
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/27/news-to-note-06272009#two
this post of your has nothing to do with dating methods at all. you
seem surprised that metrology can be in error on occasion, and that
much of a scientist's work is done on metrology. it's obvious you
haven't the faintest idea what metrology is, how difficult it is, or
its methods.
you're blindingly ignorant. truly.
and, as it's been pointed out, 'answers in genesis' regarding
evolution is like using radio havana for info on capitalism.
Will in New Haven
There is hope and help for you only a click of your keyboard away. Go
to http://www.getafuckingeducationorshutupyoumoron.com
Or you could set yourself on fire. I think you should do the latter.
It would enlighten you much more quickly.
fnord
cordially as always
--
Will in New Haven
Devils Advocaat
> Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration)
So you know of a rock that is only a few decades old, which was dated
as being over a million years old do you?
How about supporting that claim with some evidence?
John Harshman
[snip]
> But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
> of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep
I would like to see something to back up this interesting estimate. What
do you have?
r norman
There are a number of smaller dinosaurs -- see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size
So I guess it depends on what you mean by "average". You can average
over species but if you do it over individual dinosaurs you end up
with the same problem you do in calculating average molecular weight
-- there is mass average and number average. It is possible that
there are a very large number of small dinosaurs but that the big ones
are so enormous that most of the dinosaur biomass is contained in the
big ones. So if you estimate the size of dinosaurs by, say, measuring
the osmotic pressure of all the dinosaurs contained in a specified
volume, you get the size average which can be small. But if you
estimate it by measuring the light scattering from those same
dinosaurs in the volume, you get the mass average which might be
large.
Does anybody know relative population sizes and biomass estimates for
all the varieties of dinosaurs?
John Smith
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e92k4511ftj1jbj7v...@4ax.com...
Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
called fact.
You spew gallons upon gallons of nothing more than bull shit - and call it
fact!
John Harshman
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> gabriel wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
>>> of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep
>> I would like to see something to back up this interesting estimate. What
>> do you have?
>
> There are a number of smaller dinosaurs -- see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.
> So I guess it depends on what you mean by "average".
Are you sure? Is there in fact a meaning of "average" under which
gabriel's claim is true? (Presumably we're counting only non-avian
dinosaurs, too.) I doubt if even the median dinosaur is sheep-sized.
It's remotely likely it might be true for the median theropod
(especially if you estimate that the proportion of unkown small species
is greater than the proportion of unknown large species), but sauropods
were uniformly huge, and ornithischians were almost all bigger than sheep.
> You can average
> over species but if you do it over individual dinosaurs you end up
> with the same problem you do in calculating average molecular weight
> -- there is mass average and number average. It is possible that
> there are a very large number of small dinosaurs but that the big ones
> are so enormous that most of the dinosaur biomass is contained in the
> big ones. So if you estimate the size of dinosaurs by, say, measuring
> the osmotic pressure of all the dinosaurs contained in a specified
> volume, you get the size average which can be small. But if you
> estimate it by measuring the light scattering from those same
> dinosaurs in the volume, you get the mass average which might be
> large.
I'm not sure those techniques would scale up well. Perhaps you should
test them first on a population of rabbits or squirrels and get back to us.
> Does anybody know relative population sizes and biomass estimates for
> all the varieties of dinosaurs?
I'm pretty sure there are none, at least of the sort you would need.
There are estimates of the ratios between herbivore and carnivore
numbers. But all these estimates are dificult, because you have to
estimate the various biases in a highly biased sample.
Burkhard
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
> the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
> people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
> called fact.
>
You mean like lawyers and judges, who on a day to day basis make
determinations about the past?
Ernest Major
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
species was sheep-sized, considering his restricted conception of what
is an observation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Wombat
Sounds like a garbled account of the dating of unmelted rock from an
early 19th century eruption in Hawaii.
Wombat
Ernest Major
> .... that assumptions of the past are not observable or
testable/verifiable.
but then quotes AIG as saying
>
>But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
>of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep-which makes the
>logistics of fitting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark all the easier.
I'll let this speak for itself.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
In this respect, though in no other, creationists are remarkably flexible.
Mark Evans
> In message <e92k4511ftj1jbj7vde2m8u8je9aosf...@4ax.com> Gabriel asserts
I just flashed on a very bad video game I once saw based on the Noah
myth. In it you had to stack sheep to get them on the ark. Oddly
enough, you could stack them more than 2 high and there was no
provision for gender selection. No dino stacking, though. Pity they
missed the potential amusement factor in trying to stack, say,
raptors.
Mark Evans
Kermit
> Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration),
Cites?
> now by
> the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> off as well.
No, they're improving the accuracy of their measurements.
> A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> are not observable or testable/verifiable.
This is truly a silly thing to say.
One example of testing contingent conclusions about the past:
The discovery of transitional fossils, such as archaeopteryx,
ambulocetus, and tiktaalkik.
Another:
Geologists have great success in discovering oil fields. Their success
rate is *far higher than pure chance would be.
Another:
The particulate and chemical composition of ice cores match what we
would expect given dendrochronology and other sources of information
on past climate. They do.
Another:
When modern plate tectonics was presented, paleontologists expected
corroborating evidence that the timing of it would match the
divergence in the fossil record. It does.
Another:
When radioisotope dating methodology was being developed, it implied
that samples which could be tested would show matching ranges from
various radioisotopes for the appropriate scale. They do.
> But don't tell that to
> people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
> called fact.
<snip>
Kermit
Andrew
> "gabriel" wrote in message news:e92k4511ftj1jbj7v...@4ax.com...
Some folk take it hard when they are faced with the fact that
much of what they had been taught, and assumed to be true
...is actually a falsehood and a fantasy.
Tim Miller
You creationists certainly DO!
Louann Miller
9414-8b9...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
> How about supporting that claim with some evidence?
>
There you go AGAIN, asking Gabe to go directly against his religious
beliefs. Only other people have to support claims with evidence, not him.
raven1
wrote:
"gabriel" being a textbook example.
Stuart
wrote:
Shade of Woodmorappe ? You know use the "median" not the average.
Stuart
r norman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
I actually am sort of curious about this. Suppose you had swarms of
hundreds of Mei or miniraptors combined with a handful of sauropods.
The number of average, averaging over each individual would then be
quite small. If you go out on safari looking for animals in Kenya and
Tanzania, you would report a large average because you don't look at
insectivores and moles. My supposition, based on pure ignorance I
admit, is that the small animals will pretty much always far outnumber
the giant ones and will skew the number average. There is probably a
distinct size bias to hunting for dinosaur fossils and also possibly a
size bias to the probability of preservation of remains to be
fossilized.
And scaling up my techniques is no problem at all. All you need is a
semipermeable membrane impermeable to dinosaurs! That and a container
big enough to hold the suspension of dinosaurs in solvent.
Stuart
> "John Smith" wrote in messagenews:Bqr2m.24$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> > prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> > rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> > than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
> > the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> > their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> > off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> > are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
> > people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
> > called fact.
>
> > You spew gallons upon gallons of nothing more than bull
> > shit - and call it fact!
>
> Some folk take it hard when they are faced with the fact that
> much of what they had been taught, and assumed to be true
> ...is actually a falsehood and a fantasy.
Indeed that quite explains the antics of the Disco Tute, Gabriel and
yourself.
Stuart
Stuart
> Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
> the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> are not observable or testable/verifiable.
So, is it your opinion that criminals convicted solely on the basis
of forensic evidence should be released from jail?
If not, why not?
Stuart
John Harshman
Possibly. Of course Woodmorappe didn't calculate a meandian (TM) for
dinosaurs, just for all "kinds". And I don't think even the median for
dinosaurs (at least known dinosaurs) would be anywhere near that small.
John Harshman
This is definitely true. However, it isn't true for individual clades,
but within whole ecosystems. The small elephants do not far outnumber
the giant ones. So with dinosaurs. The niches for little animals in the
Cretaceous were generally filled by other groups. Mammals, for example.
> There is probably a
> distinct size bias to hunting for dinosaur fossils and also possibly a
> size bias to the probability of preservation of remains to be
> fossilized.
True also. But can you estimate the magnitude? There are a great many
unknowns.
> And scaling up my techniques is no problem at all. All you need is a
> semipermeable membrane impermeable to dinosaurs! That and a container
> big enough to hold the suspension of dinosaurs in solvent.
Again, I suggest experimenting with rabbits or squirrels first. Let us
all know how it worked out.
Stuart
Me either. But like fish stories, as creationist BS gets passed from
one creatobabbler to the other, tales get more embroidered with each
retelling..
Average Dino is sheep sized.. LOL! Next we will be told they ate
carrots and not meat.
Sturt
johnetho...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In message <lfydnV62q-BP09fX4p2d...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> writes
There is a very simple method that Gabriel (and many others) use to
evaluate any claimed observation: if it agrees with me it's valid, if
it does not it is invalid. Saves lots of trouble - no need to look at
any details, methods, etc.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
I can't see that this would be a problem - using a semipermeable
membrane is one of the standard ways to catch lions in the desert.
Just a minor tweak for whatever item you want it to be impermeable to.
Robert Weldon
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:QYKdnWZO_uAF-tfX...@earthlink.com...
Yep, they sure do, and that explains your antics to a "T".
r norman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>r norman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:43:45 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> r norman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip except this about measuring the average size of dinosaurs>
>>>> You can average
>>>> over species but if you do it over individual dinosaurs you end up
>>>> with the same problem you do in calculating average molecular weight
>>>> -- there is mass average and number average. It is possible that
>>>> there are a very large number of small dinosaurs but that the big ones
>>>> are so enormous that most of the dinosaur biomass is contained in the
>>>> big ones. So if you estimate the size of dinosaurs by, say, measuring
>>>> the osmotic pressure of all the dinosaurs contained in a specified
>>>> volume, you get the size average which can be small. But if you
>>>> estimate it by measuring the light scattering from those same
>>>> dinosaurs in the volume, you get the mass average which might be
>>>> large.
>>> I'm not sure those techniques would scale up well. Perhaps you should
>>> test them first on a population of rabbits or squirrels and get back to us.
>> ... scaling up my techniques is no problem at all. All you need is a
>> semipermeable membrane impermeable to dinosaurs! That and a container
>> big enough to hold the suspension of dinosaurs in solvent.
>
>Again, I suggest experimenting with rabbits or squirrels first. Let us
>all know how it worked out.
I wrote up a small grant proposal on "A Comparison Between the
Osmometric and the Light Scattering Methods of Measuring Average Mass
of Sciuridae and Leporidae" and submitted it to the NSF special
"fast-track" program. I just got a rejection stating "... your
techniques show great promise but unfortunately we already know the
average mass of squirrels and rabbits. If you were to apply these
methods to something more interesting, the dinosaurs say, we would be
happy to reconsider..."
Dan Luke
"gabriel" posts, "gabriel" runs.
*yawn*
r norman
I actually have a copy of the paper "A Contribution to the
Mathematical Theory of Big Game Hunting" by H. Petard, Princeton, N.J.
dated Aug-Sept 1938. The method using the semipermeable membrane is
number 14 under the category 'Methods from Experimental Physics'.
My own copy (which I found after about an hour's search in my oldest
files) is a fading purple ditto. At one time, probably nearly a half
century ago, I recognized that this was an impermanent version so I
laboriously digitized it by entering the text by hand and saving the
result on archival quality punched paper tape. Sadly, the fading
paper version is the only one whose technology survived the ravages of
time!
Now I just discovered that Google instantly presents the whole thing
beautifully formatted with a citation to The American Mathematical
Monthly, Aug.-Sept. 1938, pp. 446-447. Still, my paper copy is likely
to outlast even Google.
John Harshman
equipment. I'll take half the money and endeavor to supply the dinosaurs.
rmacfarl
"r norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2jsk45hk0fg3nac62...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:43:45 -0700, John Harshman
>
> I actually am sort of curious about this. Suppose you had
> swarms of
> hundreds of Mei or miniraptors combined with a handful of
> sauropods.
> The number of average, averaging over each individual would
> then be
> quite small. If you go out on safari looking for animals in
> Kenya and
> Tanzania, you would report a large average because you don't
> look at
> insectivores and moles.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the largest biomass on the African
savannah consists of termites...
r norman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
I would love to do that but unfortunately the Office of Sponsored
Research at my institution also got a copy of the letter of rejection.
Some idiot there misread the reviewer's objection to the study on
Sciuridae to think that they were really complaining about a
scurrilous proposal and have banned me from submitting anything even
remotely similar. But if you can supply the funding....
John Harshman
Sadly, my funding is otherwise engaged. Perhaps you could raise a
private subscription among your colleagues. Let me know and I'll provide
an address to send the check.
Perplexed in Peoria
Chicks and ducks and geese better scurry
When I dunk them into my slurry,
When I dunk them into my slurry with the fridge on top!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Do witches and witchcraft exist? If so, should they be killed?
Why do all the anti-evolution old-earth creationists think that all
the young-earth arguments are full of shit?
Why is it that no non-Biblical scientist has ever concluded, on
scientific grounds, that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old?
Why won't you answer my simple questions?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
JTEM
> But as we have frequently pointed out, the average
> size of all dinosaurs was probably about like a
> sheep-which makes the logistics of fitting
> dinosaurs on Noah's Ark all the easier.
Thank God!
I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've
laid awake many a night wondering how creatures
that had been dead for 65 million years fit on a
non-existing ship...
Eric Root
> Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
> prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
> rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
> than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
> the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
> their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
> off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
> are not observable or testable/verifiable. But don't tell that to
> people who's livelihood depend on all their assumptions being
> called fact.
>
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/27/news-to-note-06272009#two
>
> Dinosaurs: large, terrifying, and surprisingly lightweight?
>
> As far as extinct animals go, dinosaurs are easily the most
> widely discussed and inspire the most fascination. The mere word
> conjures up images of the menacing carnivore T. rex towering
> overhead. But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
> of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep-which makes the
> logistics of fitting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark all the easier.
>
> dinosaurs' weight may have been on the heavy end. The scientists
> conclude that some dinosaurs were only half as heavy as was
> previously thought. For instance, the well-known Apatosaurus
> (which LiveScience describes as "behemoth," a word used in the
> Bible in Job 40:15!) was previously estimated to have weighed in
> at 42 tons (38 t) but by the new calculation is estimated at 20
> tons (18 t).
>
> What tipped off Colorado State University's Gary Packard and
> Thomas Boardman along with George Mason University's Geoffrey
> Birchard was a test of the older calculations on living animals.
> The resulting tests estimated elephants, for instance, at far
> heavier than their true mass.
>
> And downsizing dinosaurs' weights could have long-reaching
> consequences. Birchard explained, "Think about an animal that
> big-they would have had to have certain amounts of muscle to move
> their mass If their mass is lower, the amount of muscle they
> would have had to have is significantly less. The amount of
> oxygen they would need could be interpreted to be much less
> because there's much less tissue to supply with oxygen."
>
> He continued, "They were still huge animals, I don't think anyone
> would dispute that. They might be half as big, but half of
> something that's really huge is still really huge." A recently
> found allosaurus tooth-nearly 4 inches (10 cm) long-corroborates
> that.
>
> Creationists have already answered logistical questions about how
> Noah could fit dinosaur representatives onto the Ark. For one
> thing, not all species of dinosaur needed to be on board, but
> instead only two of every dinosaur kind (a taxonomic group
> roughly equivalent to the family designation). For another thing,
> he could have easily brought juvenile dinosaurs that were less
> than their full (adult) size.
>
> Finally, as noted above, the average size of all dinosaurs is
> estimated (based on fossils) to have been about like that of a
> sheep. The discovery that scientists have overestimated
> dinosaurs' weight (and perhaps, consequently, their necessary
> muscle mass) further increases the plausibility of dinosaurs on
> Noah's Ark.
>
> =====================================================
>
> Some dinosaurs were the largest creatures ever to walk on land,
> including the classic long-necked, whip-tailed Diplodicus, but a
> new study suggests it and its many extinct brethren weighed as
> little as half as much as previously thought.
>
> A new equation for calculating dinosaur mass based on skeletons
> found that scientists have been overestimating the girth of many
> dinosaurs. In some cases, the new calculations show that certain
> dinosaurs probably weighed about half what they were thought to
> weigh.
>
> "They were still huge animals, I don't think anyone would dispute
> that," said Geoffrey Birchard, a biologist at George Mason
> University in Virginia, and co-author of a paper published this
> week in the Journal of Zoology describing the new equation. "They
> might be half as big, but half of something that's really huge is
> still really huge."
>
> For example, the behemoth Apatosaurus louisae, one of the largest
> of the dinosaurs, has been widely cited as weighing about 42 tons
> (38,000 kg). According to the new equation, these creatures
> actually weighed about 20 tons (18,000 kg), or less than half
> earlier estimates. Some other examples of old mass estimates
> compared to new:
>
> Giraffatitan brancai (Brachiosaurus) - old: 35 tons (32,000 kg);
> new: 18 tons (16,000 kg)
> Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis - old: 32 tons (29,000 kg); new: 17
> tons (15,000 kg)
> Styracosaurus albertensis - old: 4.6 tons (4,200 kg); new: 3.6
> tons (3,300 kg)
> Diplodocus sp. - old: 6.1 tons (5,500 kg); new: 4.4 tons (4,000
> kg)
> Birchard and collaborators Gary Packard and Thomas Boardman of
> Colorado State University realized there was something wrong with
> the original equation when they used it to calculate the weight
> of living animals, such as elephants, and found that it
> drastically overestimated their mass.
>
> The scientists devised a new statistical model that can more
> accurately predict the mass of an animal based on the width of
> its bones.
>
> "I like to explain it as a building that's built on pillars,"
> Birchard told LiveScience. "The pillars have to get bigger around
> to get stronger to support a larger building. Well, the legs of
> an animal are the same thing, just pillars supporting the body."
>
> Another paper published last year in the journal Fossil Record
> used a different technique for estimating body mass, but
> calculated similar results to those of Birchard's team. That
> study was led by Hanns-Christian Gunga of the
> Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
>
> If the new mass estimates are more reliable, they could have
> implications for understanding not just the weight of dinosaurs,
> but their whole biology.
>
> "Think about an animal that big - they would have had to have
> certain amounts of muscle to move their mass," Birchard said. "If
> their mass is lower, the amount of muscle they would have had to
> have is significantly less. The amount of oxygen they would need
> could be interpreted to be much less because there's much less
> tissue to supply with oxygen."
>
> Some studies suggest that dinosaur bones, like bird bones, had
> air cavities that made them lighter than they would appear. This
> feature could help explain how dinosaurs could weigh so much less
> than once thought.
38 replies so far, and Gabby doesn't have an answer for a single one
of them. Once more (and, as always) the creationist loses abjectly.
Eric Root
John S. Wilkins
Largest animal biomass, perhaps. As termites aren't autotrophs, they
must be of lesser biomass than their food sources.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Rodjk #613
You didn't know that T-rex was a vegetarian?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4467337&page=1
Rodjk #613
rmacfarl
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1j26fsm.720huojb59xzN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
That would make sense. Actually I Googled & found a few links
which stated they outweigh mammals in the savannah, for example:
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/termites/termite_ch2.htm
"Termite diversity is great in eastern Africa, especially among
the abundant Macrotermitidae. The important genera include
Macrotermes (Family Termitidae), Hodotermes (Family
Hodotermitidae), and Schedorhinotermes (Family Rhinotermitidae).
Their biomass exceeds that of mammals in the same landscape and
may exceed 50kg dry weight per hectare. "
John Smith
>r norman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
>>
>>> gabriel wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
>>>> of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep
>>> I would like to see something to back up this interesting estimate. What
>>> do you have?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size
gabby's argument flies in the face of gabby's OTHER arguments (and those of
other moronic creationists),
that all dinosaurs were represent by only TWO (of that kind) ..............
as a matter of fact .... two babies.
Of course that doesn't explain where all the other dinosaurs came from ....
where they went (during the flood), and where they went after the flood.
gotta admit .... creationists must go crazy keeping up with all those lies
..................
if they weren't already crazy when they started.
Llanzlan Klazmon
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
>
> >gabriel wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
> >> of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep
>
> >I would like to see something to back up this interesting estimate. What
> >do you have?
>
> There are a number of smaller dinosaurs -- see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size
>
> over species but if you do it over individual dinosaurs you end up
> with the same problem you do in calculating average molecular weight
> -- there is mass average and number average. It is possible that
> there are a very large number of small dinosaurs but that the big ones
> are so enormous that most of the dinosaur biomass is contained in the
> big ones. So if you estimate the size of dinosaurs by, say, measuring
> the osmotic pressure of all the dinosaurs contained in a specified
> volume, you get the size average which can be small. But if you
> estimate it by measuring the light scattering from those same
> dinosaurs in the volume, you get the mass average which might be
> large.
>
> all the varieties of dinosaurs?
No but I guess you would start by assuming a spherical dinosaur.......
Hipupchuck
alive as the Blue Whale.
Hipupchuck
You must be full of shit. The largest animal that ever lived is still
alive as the Blue Whale. It's penis is bigger than your house.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Largest animal biomass, perhaps. As termites aren't autotrophs, they
>must be of lesser biomass than their food sources.
Sorry, the pyramid of biomass, unlike the pyramid of energy
(productivity), can indeed be inverted. I'll let you google for
'inverted pyramid of biomass' to sift through the almost 4000
responses.
You forgot to consider how quickly one trophic level can grow or
reproduce in comparison with how quickly the next higher level can
eat. My favorite teaching example is that the total mass of food in
a grocery store is much less than the total mass of people who use
that store as their only source of food. It works well as long as the
delivery trucks arrive each night to restock the store.
John S. Wilkins
For how long, exactly? Or is that just a Lotka Volterra thing?
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:26:17 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Largest animal biomass, perhaps. As termites aren't autotrophs, they
>> >must be of lesser biomass than their food sources.
>>
>> Sorry, the pyramid of biomass, unlike the pyramid of energy
>> (productivity), can indeed be inverted. I'll let you google for
>> 'inverted pyramid of biomass' to sift through the almost 4000
>> responses.
>>
>> You forgot to consider how quickly one trophic level can grow or
>> reproduce in comparison with how quickly the next higher level can
>> eat. My favorite teaching example is that the total mass of food in
>> a grocery store is much less than the total mass of people who use
>> that store as their only source of food. It works well as long as the
>> delivery trucks arrive each night to restock the store.
>
>For how long, exactly? Or is that just a Lotka Volterra thing?
As long as the trucks keep coming. Suppose you have a soviet era
store where the shelves are completely bare but a distinctly
non-soviet era fleet of delivery trucks outside doing the restocking
so that each customer's needs are exactly fulfilled. Then the
standing biomass of the producer (the store) is zero.
In pond and lake communities it is common for the planktonic algae,
the primary producers, to reproduce and grow very quickly, but get
eaten by the planktonic herbivores (the next trophic level, the
primary consumers or secondary producers) just as fast as they grow.
That keeps the biomass of producers lower than the biomass of the
producers. This can be sustained indefinitely.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:26:17 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Largest animal biomass, perhaps. As termites aren't autotrophs, they
> > >must be of lesser biomass than their food sources.
> >
> > Sorry, the pyramid of biomass, unlike the pyramid of energy
> > (productivity), can indeed be inverted. I'll let you google for
> > 'inverted pyramid of biomass' to sift through the almost 4000
> > responses.
> >
> > You forgot to consider how quickly one trophic level can grow or
> > reproduce in comparison with how quickly the next higher level can
> > eat. My favorite teaching example is that the total mass of food in
> > a grocery store is much less than the total mass of people who use
> > that store as their only source of food. It works well as long as the
> > delivery trucks arrive each night to restock the store.
>
> For how long, exactly? Or is that just a Lotka Volterra thing?
Don't some algaes grow 100% in a day under favorable conditions,
couldn't they support a population larger in biomass than themselves?
John S. Wilkins
Interesting. So at any givem instant, the autotrophic biomass might be
effectively zero, but over a time *period* it would exceed the next
trophic level?
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
You are sort of getting at the idea but you innumeracy is getting in
the way. Your 'over a time period' is sort of like the mathematical
process of integration. The problem is that you want to integrate the
food source over time but not integrate the consumer.
A better way of looking at it is through mathematical derivatives. The
rate of growth in one trophic level has to exceed the rate of
consumption by the next level. The problem is relating rates of
growth or of consumption to standing biomass. If I eat 10% of my body
weight in one day but what I eat has the potential of growing 50% in
one day, than a standing crop of 10 pounds of my food will sustain 50
pounds of me. Of course that means that there are really big
differences in how the trophic levels work. When I eat 10% of my body
weight, all that food goes into energy that is consumed so that I
don't grow at all. (Don't check the numbers -- they are just
order-of-magnitude estimatees -- if I really ate 20 pounds of food
every day I would get fatter and fatter, a form of growth. Well,
actually I am getting fatter and fatter but that is a different
story.) However the producer, the autotrophs, is taking in so much
resources and energy that it has enough not only to sustain itself but
also to grow at a very high rate. So the energy and material flow
through the body of the producer (bodies, because in this case there
are an awful lot of really small ones) is tremendous while the energy
and material flow through the body of the consumer is far less. Still
the mass of the consumer's body can be substantially less than the
combined mass of all the producers' bodies. The difference is in the
rates at which they process materials and the use to which they put
the processed material.
Ron O
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
>
> <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >gabriel wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
>
> >I would like to see something to back up this interesting estimate. What
> >do you have?
>
> There are a number of smaller dinosaurs -- see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size
>
> So I guess it depends on what you mean by "average". You can average
> over species but if you do it over individual dinosaurs you end up
> with the same problem you do in calculating average molecular weight
> -- there is mass average and number average. It is possible that
> there are a very large number of small dinosaurs but that the big ones
> are so enormous that most of the dinosaur biomass is contained in the
> big ones. So if you estimate the size of dinosaurs by, say, measuring
> the osmotic pressure of all the dinosaurs contained in a specified
> volume, you get the size average which can be small. But if you
> estimate it by measuring the light scattering from those same
> dinosaurs in the volume, you get the mass average which might be
> large.
>
> Does anybody know relative population sizes and biomass estimates for
> all the varieties of dinosaurs?
You might need photons the size of bird shot to scale up this
technique. I can just see the publication to kill two birds with one
stone, "Bag limit light speed shotgun estimation of mass ratios among
non avian dinosaurs."
Ron Okimoto
r norman
wrote:
My impression is that the scattering particles have to be smaller than
the wavelength. My old ham radio transmitter operating on the 80
meter band (3.8 MHz) should do the trick.
John Thompson
> >> > big enough to hold the suspension of dinosaurs in solvent.
>
> >> Again, I suggest experimenting with rabbits or squirrels first. Let us
> >> all know how it worked out.
>
> >I can't see that this would be a problem - using asemipermeable
> >membrane is one of the standard ways to catch lions in the desert.
> >Just a minor tweak for whatever item you want it to be impermeable to.
>
> I actually have a copy of the paper "A Contribution to the
> Mathematical Theory of Big Game Hunting" by H. Petard, Princeton, N.J.
> number 14 under the category 'Methods from Experimental Physics'.
>
> My own copy (which I found after about an hour's search in my oldest
> files) is a fading purple ditto. At one time, probably nearly a half
> century ago, I recognized that this was an impermanent version so I
> laboriously digitized it by entering the text by hand and saving the
> result on archival quality punched paper tape. Sadly, the fading
> paper version is the only one whose technology survived the ravages of
> time!
>
> Now I just discovered that Google instantly presents the whole thing
> beautifully formatted with a citation to The American Mathematical
> Monthly, Aug.-Sept. 1938, pp. 446-447. Still, my paper copy is likely
> to outlast even Google.
I have it in "A Random Walk in Science" (ISBN 0-8448-0362-6), a 1973
anthology of items both serious and humorous spanning several
centuries. I'm pretty sure it was reprinted somewhere before this
however - I remember my father showing this to us when I was a child
and I doubt he had the original.
There are lots of good methods given; my favorite is the one where a
beam of lions is focused into a cage by a lenticular bed of catnip.
gabriel
<bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Jun 30, 2:53 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > Just like their dating methods on rocks only a few decades old
: > prove their dating methods were rife with assumptions, dating a
: > rock a few decades old as over a million years old (that's more
: > than just a little error - that's a gross exaggeration), now by
: > the same method of testing on animals we CAN observe, they notice
: > their assumptions about the weight of dinosaurs was always way
: > off as well. A reminder to us all that assumptions of the past
: > are not observable or testable/verifiable.
:
: So, is it your opinion that criminals convicted solely on the basis
: of forensic evidence should be released from jail?
:
: If not, why not?
:
: Stuart
Good question.
The example you bring up is always about forensic evidence of **a
physical event which is physically possible**, i.e., a physical
event of which the same type **has been observed in the past** -
for example, murders, robberies, and so on. Murders are possible,
hence it makes sense to check forensic evidence to help decide if
another murder has taken place, even if no one has witnessed that
**particular** murder. Murders and robberies are repeatable to
verify that they are possible. Hence, again, it makes sense to
check forensic evidence to consider IF they believe another
murder or robbery was committed by a certain person in a specific
case. And even then, they could still be wrong, it should be
noted.
But to apply that line of logic to evolutionism (the belief that
mankind evolved over generations from populations of fish and
worse) would be akin to a criminal case of someone bringing a
person to court under the claim that this person turned their
friend Bob into a goldfish. They might have countless huge books
with "evidence", countless truckloads full of forensic evidence,
observations of the goldfish bones, claims of DNA similarity
between the goldfish and Bob's DNA they happened to have from the
past, the claim they have similar colored eyes, and so on, all
collected over 70 years or longer. And the judge would say "Show
me a single observation and/or test/verification that shows
anyone turned into a goldfish - until such time, please take your
volumes and truckloads of 'forensic evidence' and what you
believe about it out of my courtroom."
With evolutionism, what they believe when looking at dead bones
is not observable and also not testable/verifiable as being at
all possible, one can only believe in it. For example, one can
only believe that populations of apes (or now perhaps it's
Orangutans, as they continue to change their mind on what's
"fact") evolved, over generations, into human beings. That belief
is unobservable, and impossible to test/verify.
"Evolution is a framework about the past that can never be
repeated or tested and must be accepted by interpretation and
authority. That is, by all measures, a belief." - AiG
"But note that good science is observable and repeatable—unlike
evolution and its historical postulates." - AiG
Hope this helps.
Tim Miller
>
> "Evolution is a framework about the past that can never be
> repeated or tested and must be accepted by interpretation and
> authority. That is, by all measures, a belief." - AiG
>
> "But note that good science is observable and repeatable�unlike
> evolution and its historical postulates." - AiG
>
> Hope this helps.
>
Quoting those ignorant pinheads at AiG NEVER helps. Unless
your goal is "inducing laughter in others".
gabriel
<er...@swva.net> wrote:
Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
using your logic, the number that believed it made it fact, yet
the truth is they were all wrong. Numbers does not equate to
truth - especially when it comes to evolutionism that is
impossible to observe and is not repeatable, one can only believe
in it.
raven1
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
The ancient Egyptians and Greeks not only knew that the Earth is a
sphere, they did a pretty good job of calculating its size. The
authors of the Bible, on the other hand, believed that the world was a
flat circle, with the sky as a dome.
John Smith
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ovcv45hcbhln6md2q...@4ax.com...
Good question.
"But note that good science is observable and repeatable-unlike
evolution and its historical postulates." - AiG
Hope this helps.
............... no - it just re-confirms your ignorance.
Andrew Cunningham
Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
the earth? All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
the Bible clearly states it's flat, just as it clearly states that a
deity created all life on earth. You can't pick and choose literal
interpretations of the same book, right? So, what do you believe?
Louann Miller
news:1oiv45hhhlo9bo21k...@4ax.com:
> The ancient Egyptians and Greeks not only knew that the Earth is a
> sphere, they did a pretty good job of calculating its size. The
> authors of the Bible, on the other hand, believed that the world was a
> flat circle, with the sky as a dome.
Probably because the authors of the Bible were landlubbers. Watching land
and other ships and so forth roll slowly below the horizon as you get
further away is a pretty damn good clue.
It's not their fault. The Philestines were between them and the Med.
Walter Bushell
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
They were on a trade route. It isn't as if they were isolated except by
their own choice. Appalachians of their times.
Walter Bushell
<03851232-917b-42a0...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Cunningham <azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
> the earth? All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
> Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
> through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
> the Bible clearly states it's flat, just as it clearly states that a
> deity created all life on earth. You can't pick and choose literal
> interpretations of the same book, right? So, what do you believe?
Silly troll. Take a flight over the Northwest Territories you will see
that world laid out in square sections (by act of the Continental
Congress -- perhaps the only noteworthy action of that majestic body)
with the roads running around the boarders. Pretty regularly you will
see corrections where the road takes a dog leg to correct for the
curvature of the earth. Or just take a gander at the Verrazano-Narrows
connecting Staten Island with Brooklyn, if you look at the pillars at
each end they are perpendicular to the water, but not parallel to each
other and indeed the water's surface is curved.
TomS
<proto-70BEAA....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell stated..."
Something which I have rarely seen mentioned is the illumination of
mountain tops by the sun before sunrise and after sunset. This is a
striking effect in mountainous regions. Why isn't it often mentioned?
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Paul J Gans
No need. Almost everybody but a few kooks has thought the
earth round for about the last 2000 years if not longer.
Why?
The usual reasons, including the illumination of mountains.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
el cid
> Something which I have rarely seen mentioned is the illumination of
> mountain tops by the sun before sunrise and after sunset. This is a
> striking effect in mountainous regions. Why isn't it often mentioned?
I understand why mountains on a circular globe are illuminated
by sunlight earlier in the morning and later in the evening.
But if I think about a cube with mountains on it I think I
get the same effect with different timing. I guess a circle
riding on the backs of 4 elephants on the back of a
giant turtle would as well. What am I missing?
Andrew Cunningham
> In article
> <03851232-917b-42a0-bb15-490d285c6...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Silly goblin. You entirely missed the point I was trying to make.
Please try to read the last couple lines of my post once again, then
feel free to get back to me after you've made a proper assessment of
my post.
Ernest Major
<8d7c361b-a31e-44b7...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, el
cid <elcid...@gmail.com> writes
because lower altitudes are in shadow. Think what causes the shadow. On
a flat surface (whether a face of a cube, or a circle) the curvature of
the Earth isn't there to case a shadow, so you have to ascribe it to
different mountains.
If you go to a suitable place on the American Great Plains you'll see
sunrise on the Rocky Mountains. But there's no mountains between you and
the sun before the Appalachians. Because the Appalachians are so far
away the sun would only have to rise a small angle before the sunrise
reached you as well. On a spherical earth it has to rise more to have
the same effect. So the magnitude of the difference in sunrise times
distinguishes the two situations.
--
alias Ernest Major
r norman
You have to know how high the mountains are, how far they are from the
edge of the flat earth, and how far away from the edge the sun sinks.
Then you have to travel great distances over the surface and compare
the effect at different locations with different mountains.
The fact is that the mountain tops are still sunlit before dawn and
after dusk for a flat earth. Comparing the magnitude of difference
doesn't work with a lot of data needed in the calculation.
r norman
wrote:
Sorry, this last is garbled. I mean by looking only at the sun on the
mountain tops you can't tell that the earth is round without a lot of
other information which is probably not readily available.
el cid
> In message
> <8d7c361b-a31e-44b7-84ed-cbc24d3dd...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, el
As I said, though I guess your exposition is useful for some, I
understand
the process for a ovoid planet. But if you go and find that rubic's
cube
you have laying around somewhere and stick some sticky-outy bump
in the middle you can demonstrate to yourself that the sticky-outy
imitation mountain top will be illuminated before before and after its
base when you rotate the cube around the proper axis away from a
light source. The edge of the cube still still produces a shadow.
The rate of change in the shadow on a tower over a "flat" expanse
is a rather interesting thing but I was told there would be no math.
el cid
Wombat
> In message
> <8d7c361b-a31e-44b7-84ed-cbc24d3dd...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, el
Don't the Flat Earth loonies think the Earth is shaped like an
upturned saucer rather than totally flat. Just a point.
Wombat
Cory Albrecht
> "On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:16:32 -0400, in article
> <proto-70BEAA....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell stated..."
>>
>> In article
>> <03851232-917b-42a0...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Andrew Cunningham<azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
>>> the earth? All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
>>> Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
>>> through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
>>> the Bible clearly states it's flat, just as it clearly states that a
>>> deity created all life on earth. You can't pick and choose literal
>>> interpretations of the same book, right? So, what do you believe?
>>
>> Silly troll. Take a flight over the Northwest Territories you will see
>> that world laid out in square sections (by act of the Continental
>> Congress -- perhaps the only noteworthy action of that majestic body)
>> with the roads running around the boarders. Pretty regularly you will
>> see corrections where the road takes a dog leg to correct for the
>> curvature of the earth. Or just take a gander at the Verrazano-Narrows
>> connecting Staten Island with Brooklyn, if you look at the pillars at
>> each end they are perpendicular to the water, but not parallel to each
>> other and indeed the water's surface is curved.
>>
>
> Something which I have rarely seen mentioned is the illumination of
> mountain tops by the sun before sunrise and after sunset. This is a
> striking effect in mountainous regions. Why isn't it often mentioned?
Except that would still happen, even if the Earth were a flat disc as a
literal Biblical reading demands.
The height of the mountain (a) and the flat surface of the earth (b)
form the right-angle sides of a triangle, and the line of sight from the
mountain top (T) to the eastern edge of the flat Earth is the hypotenuse
(c) of whatever angle (A = arctan(a/b)).
Similar sides and angles (a', b', c', A') exist for the Sun (S) as it
comes out from underneath the from underneath the flat Earth after it's
nightly journey.
T
|\
| \
| \
| \
a c
| \
| \
|__b___A\_ _ b'_ _
\A' |
\ |
\ |
c' a'
\ |
\ |
\ |
\|
S
If we define "sunrise" as the time when A' = 0 degrees, then any
mountain who's a > a', which happens when A' < A, will have their
eastern summits lit by the Sun before sunrise. The sunset phenomenon is
similar.
On a spherical rather than disc-shaped planet, this phenomenon allows
you to estimate the radius of the planet when you also know the
difference between the local noon-times of the mountain top, a coastal
location and their latitudes.
gabriel
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:31:11 -0400, gabriel
Where's your proof they thought it was flat, verses you believing
they thought that?
gabriel
<azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
: All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
: Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
: through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
: the Bible clearly states it's flat,
Please show where it says it's flat, as opposed to you believing
that's what they're implying.
: just as it clearly states that a
Augray
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<fus7559sqbrq63960...@4ax.com> :
>On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Cunningham
><azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>: All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
>: Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
>: through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
>: the Bible clearly states it's flat,
>
>Please show where it says it's flat, as opposed to you believing
>that's what they're implying.
Matthew 4:8
Andrew Cunningham
> : >
> : > Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
> : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
> : the earth?
>
> Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
> : All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
> : Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
> : through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
> : the Bible clearly states it's flat,
>
> Please show where it says it's flat, as opposed to you believing
> that's what they're implying.
>
> : just as it clearly states that a
> : deity created all life on earth. You can't pick and choose literal
> : interpretations of the same book, right? So, what do you believe?
As Augray has pointed out, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil
took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of
the world in their glory.”
If that is not enough, there is always Daniel 4:10-11.
TomS
<e502d230-c7ea-4e03...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Andrew
Cunningham stated..."
>
>On Jul 7, 9:19=A0pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> : >
>> : > Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
>
>> : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
>> : the earth?
>>
>> Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
>
>Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
Flat earthers have pointed out that a circumnavigation of a globe
can be transformed into a path on a flat disk.
I believe that a mathematician - specifically, a topologist - can
point out the difficulties of distinguishing a sphere from a plane.
Ralph
Matthew 4:8; Daniel 4:10-11; Revelation 7:1
JohnN
wrote:
> gabriel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > But as we have frequently pointed out, the average size
> > of all dinosaurs was probably about like a sheep
>
> do you have?
If the dino's where the size of a house, then humans couldn't saddle
them and ride them around. Therefore the dinosaurs had to be much
smaller. Right? Right! That's just good YEC christian logic.
JohnN
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 04:30:29 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <e502d230-c7ea-4e03...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Andrew
> Cunningham stated..."
> >
> >On Jul 7, 9:19=A0pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> : >
> >> : > Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
> >
> >> : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
> >> : the earth?
> >>
> >> Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
> >
> >Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
> [...snip...]
>
> Flat earthers have pointed out that a circumnavigation of a globe
> can be transformed into a path on a flat disk.
>
> I believe that a mathematician - specifically, a topologist - can
> point out the difficulties of distinguishing a sphere from a plane.
But to a topologist a donut and a coffee cup are the same. Surveyors
know the world is only very locally flat.
r norman
wrote:
To a topologist, the surface of the earth is identical to the surface
of a flat disk if you should happen to identify all the points on the
circular edge. The surface of the earth is also identical to the
Euclidean plane if you add a single point at infinity to the plane.
gabriel
wrote:
Remember I said proof, not belief.
Matthew 4:8 KJVR
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the
glory of them;
This does not PROVE they thought the world was flat. It only
shows the author conveys that the devil was talking about only
those kingdoms within sight, and making reference to all kingdoms
in the entire world. The local kingdoms was the entire world to
them.
To also contradict this claim this shows they believed the world
was flat - they would know that you can only see so far anyway,
and you're not going to see things thousands of miles away if it
the world was flat.
So the devil brought God up into a mountain to show him as much
of the world as the eye can see, not to mention a place of height
that shows majesty and power.
Daniel 4:10-11 KJVR
10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof
was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached
unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
This was a dream that used symbolism - it no more concludes that
the world is flat than it concludes that there are trees that are
miles high, either.
Not to mention Daniel's entire known earth was his immediate
surroundings, and in spite of being round, their part of the
world with those kingdoms, such a tree would be seen by their
"entire earth".
Revelation 7:1 KJVR
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four
corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that
the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
tree.
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a
flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four
corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal
directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is
often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting,
even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible
writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always
have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best
and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on
scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.
- AiG
Those verses don't prove they thought the earth was flat - it
only shows that others believe they thought this.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?
No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a
flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four
corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal
directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is
often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting,
even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible
writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always
have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best
and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is
suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the
spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon
the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end."
A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the
circle of the earth."
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word
circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard
Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as
a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10.
The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that
the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in
Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates
that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day
and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest
books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the
Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the
sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.)
calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the
present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified
such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical
earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a
flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]
The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by
watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing
eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well
known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of
course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke,
where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In
that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion
to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other
simultaneously. [JSM]
"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely
accurate." [DD]
gabriel
<azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Jul 7, 9:19 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > : >
: > : > Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
:
: > : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
: > : the earth?
: >
: > Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
:
: Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
You could if civilization was so young that every nation existed
in a small enough area and hadn't spread yet.
:
: > : All of the images I have ever show a perfectly flat earth.
: > : Can you take the planet and place it in a laboratory and show me
: > : through repeatable experiments that it isn't flat? More importantly,
: > : the Bible clearly states it's flat,
: >
: > Please show where it says it's flat, as opposed to you believing
: > that's what they're implying.
: >
: > : just as it clearly states that a
: > : deity created all life on earth. You can't pick and choose literal
: > : interpretations of the same book, right? So, what do you believe?
:
: As Augray has pointed out, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil
: took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of
: the world in their glory.”
:
: If that is not enough, there is always Daniel 4:10-11.
Matthew 4:8 KJVR
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the
glory of them;
This does not PROVE they thought the world was flat. It only
shows the author conveys that the devil was talking about only
those kingdoms within sight, and making reference to all kingdoms
in the entire world. The local kingdoms was the entire world to
them.
To also contradict this claim this shows they believed the world
was flat - they would know that you can only see so far anyway,
and you're not going to see things thousands of miles away if it
the world was flat.
So the devil brought God up into a mountain to show him as much
of the world as the eye can see, not to mention a place of height
that shows majesty and power.
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:25:30 -0400, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:37:07 -0400, raven1
>: > <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > : On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:31:11 -0400, gabriel
>: > : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > :
>: > :
>: > : >Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
>: > :
>: > : The ancient Egyptians and Greeks not only knew that the Earth is a
>: > : sphere, they did a pretty good job of calculating its size. The
>: > : authors of the Bible, on the other hand, believed that the world was a
>: > : flat circle, with the sky as a dome.
>: >
>: > Where's your proof they thought it was flat, verses you believing
>: > they thought that?
>: >
>:
>: Matthew 4:8; Daniel 4:10-11; Revelation 7:1
>
>Remember I said proof, not belief.
>
>Matthew 4:8 KJVR
>8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
>mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the
>glory of them;
>
>This does not PROVE they thought the world was flat.
Yes it does, how else would all the kingdoms of the world be visible
from even the highest mountain.
>It only
>shows the author conveys that the devil was talking about only
>those kingdoms within sight, and making reference to all kingdoms
>in the entire world. The local kingdoms was the entire world to
>them.
Rubbish. Even in that time they knew of all the world except the
Americas and Australia.
>
>To also contradict this claim this shows they believed the world
>was flat - they would know that you can only see so far anyway,
>and you're not going to see things thousands of miles away if it
>the world was flat.
>
>So the devil brought God up into a mountain to show him as much
>of the world as the eye can see, not to mention a place of height
>that shows majesty and power.
Interesting. It says "all the kingdoms of the world" and you say the
bible lies?
>
>Daniel 4:10-11 KJVR
>10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
>behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof
>was great.
>11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached
>unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
>
>This was a dream that used symbolism - it no more concludes that
>the world is flat than it concludes that there are trees that are
>miles high, either.
So, again, you say the bible lies?
>
>Not to mention Daniel's entire known earth was his immediate
>surroundings, and in spite of being round, their part of the
>world with those kingdoms, such a tree would be seen by their
>"entire earth".
That is NOT what it says.
>
>Revelation 7:1 KJVR
>1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four
>corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that
>the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
>tree.
>
>Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a
>flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four
>corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal
>directions: north, south, east, and west.
That is NOT what it says.
> Similar terminology is
>often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting,
>even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible
>writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always
>have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best
>and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on
>scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.
Hohohoho!
> - AiG
>
>Those verses don't prove they thought the earth was flat - it
>only shows that others believe they thought this.
It is written in YOUR favourite book of fairy tales - the one you and
your ilk consider the literal word of your gods.
>
>
>
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
>
>Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?
>
>No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!
Liar!
>
>Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a
>flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four
>corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal
>directions: north, south, east, and west.
Prove it.
> Similar terminology is
>often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting,
>even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible
>writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always
>have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best
>and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
>
>In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is
>suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the
>spherical sun and moon. [DD]
Neither were known to be spherical, until modern science showed it.
>
>A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon
>the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end."
>A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the
>circle of the earth."
See, again, circle.
>
>Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word
>circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard
>Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as
>a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10.
>The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that
>the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in
>Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates
>that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day
>and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
Wrong again, on so many counts.
>
>The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest
>books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the
>Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the
>sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
True, but the bible's view held sway for a very long time.
>
>Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.)
>calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the
>present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
True, but the bible's view held sway for a very long time.
>
>The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified
>such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical
>earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a
>flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]
True, but the bible's view held sway for a very long time.
>
>The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by
>watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing
>eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well
>known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of
>course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]
True, but the bible's view held sway for a very long time.
>
>The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke,
>where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In
>that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion
>to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other
>simultaneously. [JSM]
You do try to twist things - but it doesn't work.
>
>"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely
>accurate." [DD]
Don't talk such total crap.
Every time you idiot creationists claim that you are proven wrong -
why still try to lie about it?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 04:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Cunningham
><azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>: On Jul 7, 9:19 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: > : >
>: > : > Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
>:
>: > : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
>: > : the earth?
>: >
>: > Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
>:
>: Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
>
>You could if civilization was so young that every nation existed
>in a small enough area and hadn't spread yet.
Since the earliest well documented civilization in China, the feudal
Shang, existed from the 18th to the 12th century BC, that puts a lie
to that claim.
[snip]
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <9tmc55llq0il8204d...@4ax.com>):
Not to mention the Indus Valley civilisations, 3300 to 1900 BC...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ye Old One
But you did mention them :)
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <tarc55htkj1bem600...@4ax.com>):
Which means that my post, unlike gabby's, had actual content.
But that's not new..
Cory Albrecht
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 04:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Cunningham
> <azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : On Jul 7, 9:19 pm, gabriel<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Everyone in the world thought it was flat once upon a time -
> :
> :> : Excuse me, but tell me, how can you, personally, observe the shape of
> :> : the earth?
> :>
> :> Can take a trip around the world on a plane.
> :
> : Can you see every single nation at once in this plane?
>
> You could if civilization was so young that every nation existed
> in a small enough area and hadn't spread yet.
Since this was at the time of Jesus, you're saying that all then extant
nations - Greek, Roman, Han Chinese, early Japanese, Celtic, the
Parthian, Indo-Greek, Saka, Satavahana Indian, the Mon, Funan, Kushan,
Xiongnu, the Korean kingdoms, Pueblo culture, Teotihuacan, Mayans, the
Moche, - could all be seen from a single high mountain?