Re: Noah's Ark Discovery Tied Into Atheistic Plot From Wall St. & Russian Revolution??

[Ralph]

On 3/17/2012 12:12 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:43 am, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT), wgroom<wgr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 9:03 pm, Mike Painter<md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2012 10:34 AM, wgroom wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 15, 4:30 pm, Mike Painter<md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/2012 12:04 PM, wgroom wrote:> On Mar 14, 5:55 pm, "Mike Painter"<md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Caranx latus wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> His "Noah book" talks of a water filled canopy, something the fundamental
>>>>>>>> crowd has dismissed as impossible - while still holding with a literal
>>>>>>>> flood.
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say one site is the fundamental crowd, unless you want to
>>>>>>> be fundamentally wrong.
>>>>>> I don't. I simply pointed out that the site *founded* by the person who
>>>>>> wrote your ONE SOURCE book has abandoned the canopy idea.
>>>>> Who is that person if I may ask?
>>>> You may ask but I'll give you the same answer you give us.
>>>> Look it up, it is easy to find on line and has been repeated here
>>>> several times.
>>>> The amusing part is that you seem sincere with your question.
>>> Oh, I have enough Noah books to keep me amused for awhile. Obviously
>>> you can't even counteract them, because you don't know in general
>>> what's in them, or if you do, are deceptively hiding what's in them.
>> Name one of those books that actually relies on scientific evidence.
> Give us a scientific cite for all the water that's on earth. All the
> books I have use cite numbers. I know you can order one and look them
> up.
>
> wg

Try this:

* If all of Earth's water (oceans, icecaps and glaciers, lakes,
rivers, ground water, and water in the atmosphere was put into a
sphere, then the diameter of that water ball would be about 860
miles (about 1,385 kilometers) across, a bit more than the
distance between Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kansas. The
volume of all water would be about 332.5 million cubic miles (mi^3
), or 1,386 million cubic kilometers (km^3 ). The picture at the
top of this page illustrates this. A cubic mile of water equals
more than 1.1 trillion gallons. A cubic kilometer of water equals
about 264 billion gallons.
* About 3,100 mi^3 (12,900 km^3 ) of water, mostly in the form of
water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell
as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only
about 1 inch of water.
* The 48 contiguous United States receives a total volume of about 4
mi^3 (17.7 km^3 ) of precipitation each day.
* Each day, 280 mi^3 (1,170 km^3 )of water evaporate
<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html> or
transpire
<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html>
into the atmosphere.
* If all of the world's water was poured on the United States, it
would cover the land to a depth of 90 miles (145 kilometers).
* Of the freshwater on Earth, much more is stored in the ground than
is available in lakes
<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthlakes.html> and rivers
<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrivers.html>. More than
2,000,000 mi^3 (8,400,000 km^3 )of freshwater is stored in the
Earth, most within one-half mile of the surface. But, if you
really want to find freshwater, the most is stored in the
7,000,000 mi^3 (29,200,000 km^3 ) of water found in glaciers and
icecaps <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html>, mainly
in the polar regions and in Greenland.


If you have any questions contact the USGS:-)))).

[wgroom]

Well, at least you'll be able to use this for posters who don't think
there is that much water here for 'mountain covering'.

Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere and get
here in some form.

wg

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/20/2012 1:19 PM, wgroom wrote:
> On Mar 19, 6:59 pm, Ralph<mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 12:12 PM, curtjester1 wrote:

<snip>

Not if you run the numbers for the entire Earth.

> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere

Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
Earth's water could evaporate into it.

> and get
> here in some form.

Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
biological action, and by comets and asteroids.

[wgroom]

Now now. But the water would pass most mountain elevations.

> > Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>
> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>

Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood, and it doesn't
say how long water came there....or even by what means.

> > and get
> > here in some form.
>
> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.

All have been opined. But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
can you?

wg

[Mike Painter]

On 3/21/2012 9:39 AM, wgroom wrote:

>
> All have been opined. But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
> can you?
>

If you define "canopy" as a cloud cover, then no.
If you mean a "canopy" which could have caused a flood, then all of
physics and most of Christianity deny such a thing.

Not only that but the bible does not mention a canopy and talks of water
above and below the firmament.
Fifty years ago some wacko decided the bible was wrong on this. He was
right and it is not possible.
Then he made up an explanation with no science to back him up.
People somewhat like you bought into it.
I say somewhat because over the years they accepted it was not valid.

[Tom McDonald]

That's not what the Bible claims. The claim is that the water would
'pass' *all* mountain elevations.

Do the math, and get back to me.

>>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>>
>> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
>> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>>
> Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,

Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
Not enough for Ye Floode waters.

> and it doesn't
> say how long water came there....or even by what means.

Guess.

>>> and get
>>> here in some form.
>>
>> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
>> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>
> All have been opined. But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
> can you?

Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
*before* Ye Floode.

[wgroom]

Canopies are gaseous with different compositions. There is nothing
mysterious about that. Who knows how God might have held water in
detail? Sniping at this word is just beyond retarded.

wg

[wgroom]

Yes, but that doesn't mention what would occur after the rain
surpassed them as far as mountains being newly formed or accentuated.

> Do the math, and get back to me.
>
> >>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>
> >> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
> >> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>
> > Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>
> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>

I have no idea what ye are speaking of.

> > and it doesn't
> > say how long water came there....or even by what means.
>
> Guess.
>

Read a book. You might find some.

> >>> and get
> >>> here in some form.
>
> >> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
> >> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>
> > All have been opined.  But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
> > can you?
>
> Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
> be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
> screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
> Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
> *before* Ye Floode.

Narrow-minded canopy you have there.

People have suggested a green-house effect as being the source of
superior plants and animals Pre-flood and that has been 'uncovered'.

Carbon amounts may have been completely different, pre-Flood....

wg

[Tom McDonald]

You appear to think that Ye Floode included a massive, perhaps
world-wide, orogeny event. Yet that couldn't have happened without the
Earth heating enough to evaporate the waters of the Floode. Not to
mention, of course, that the rate of rainfall required by Ye Floode
would have in itself raised the temperature of the Earth by hundreds of
degrees Celsius.

But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
rainfall. Why is that?

>> Do the math, and get back to me.
>>
>>>>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>>
>>>> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
>>>> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>>
>>> Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>>
>> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
>> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>>
> I have no idea what ye are speaking of.
>
>>> and it doesn't
>>> say how long water came there....or even by what means.
>>
>> Guess.
>>
> Read a book. You might find some.

I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
natural sequalia.

>>>>> and get
>>>>> here in some form.
>>
>>>> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
>>>> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>>
>>> All have been opined. But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
>>> can you?
>>
>> Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
>> be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
>> screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
>> Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
>> *before* Ye Floode.
>
> Narrow-minded canopy you have there.

Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?

> People have suggested a green-house effect as being the source of
> superior plants and animals Pre-flood and that has been 'uncovered'.

Define 'superior'. Define 'pre-flood'.

> Carbon amounts may have been completely different, pre-Flood....

Carbon amounts may have been exactly the same, pre-Floode.

[Mike Painter]

Slowly wgroomspeak moves towards magic and away from science.

[wgroom]

Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident. Wind is
mentioned. You mention heat. Now if the rain/evaporation process
started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
'canopy' made it's way back up?

> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
> rainfall. Why is that?
>
>

Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
out. Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?

>
>
>
> >> Do the math, and get back to me.
>
> >>>>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>
> >>>> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
> >>>> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>
> >>> Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>
> >> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
> >> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>
> > I have no idea what ye are speaking of.
>
> >>> and it doesn't
> >>> say how long water came there....or even by what means.
>
> >> Guess.
>
> > Read a book.  You might find some.
>
> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
> natural sequalia.
>
>

Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
science community. IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.

>
>
>
> >>>>> and get
> >>>>> here in some form.
>
> >>>> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
> >>>> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>
> >>> All have been opined.  But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
> >>> can you?
>
> >> Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
> >> be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
> >> screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
> >> Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
> >> *before* Ye Floode.
>
> > Narrow-minded canopy you have there.
>
> Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
> Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?
>

Can't get over the waters from above and waters from below?

> > People have suggested a green-house effect as being the source of
> > superior plants and animals Pre-flood and that has been 'uncovered'.
>
> Define 'superior'. Define 'pre-flood'.
>

Much bigger, and living longer.

> > Carbon amounts may have been completely different, pre-Flood....
>
> Carbon amounts may have been exactly the same, pre-Floode.

Not according to a lot of theory. A lot is written on the carbon
dating finds and methods and why they are so diverse.

wg

[curtjester1]

It could pass, and THEN the mountains could gain heighth. That's what
Psalms 104 seems to indicate.

> >>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>
> >> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
> >> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>
> > Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>
> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>

Why weren't the water tables already full?

> > and it doesn't
> > say how long water came there....or even by what means.
>
> Guess.
>

Don't have to. We have the product and the end product.

> >>> and get
> >>> here in some form.
>
> >> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
> >> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>
> > All have been opined.  But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
> > can you?
>
> Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
> be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
> screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
> Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
> *before* Ye Floode.

Not really if you expand your dimensions and think of how things grow
in a greenhouse.

wg

[Ralph]

There isn't, you damn fool! Can't you read and understand even the
simplest words???

[Ralph]

Sniping at 'his word' is one of the easiest tasks there is, for 'his
word' is full of holes:-)))).

[Ralph]

Why don't you tell us what happened, 'groom'.

>> Do the math, and get back to me.
>>
>>>>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>>>> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
>>>> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>>> Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
>> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>>
> I have no idea what ye are speaking of.

Whew!! The first truthful statement the man has made!

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 2:39 PM, wgroom wrote:
>>> On Mar 21, 11:03 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> That's not what the Bible claims. The claim is that the water would
>>>> 'pass' *all* mountain elevations.
>>
>>> Yes, but that doesn't mention what would occur after the rain
>>> surpassed them as far as mountains being newly formed or accentuated.
>>
>> You appear to think that Ye Floode included a massive, perhaps
>> world-wide, orogeny event. Yet that couldn't have happened without the
>> Earth heating enough to evaporate the waters of the Floode. Not to
>> mention, of course, that the rate of rainfall required by Ye Floode
>> would have in itself raised the temperature of the Earth by hundreds of
>> degrees Celsius.
>>
> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident. Wind is
> mentioned. You mention heat. Now if the rain/evaporation process
> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
> 'canopy' made it's way back up?

If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?

>> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
>> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
>> rainfall. Why is that?
>>
>>
> Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
> out. Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?

That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.

If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?

If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
laws, then it didn't happen. Period.

<snip>

>> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
>> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
>> natural sequalia.
>>
>>
> Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
> topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
> and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
> science community. IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that there
are still questions in science? Well, duh. Of course there are.

Are you trying to say that there are some facts that confound scientists
and point to a great world-wide flood? I'd like to read something about
that.

I can, in fact, read pretty well. I've read a number of books of the
sort you have been telling us to read. Every one of them, in the places
where they claim to have facts that modern science can't explain, but
which facts are explained by 'creation scientists'--in every case,
further reading has shown that they are wrong in those claims. Every time.

If you've got better sources, name them. But so far, what you've
referenced savors too much of the above problem.

<snip>

>>> Narrow-minded canopy you have there.
>>
>> Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
>> Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?
>>
> Can't get over the waters from above and waters from below?

Not enough water, unless the land was essentially flat. If the land was
essentially flat, the orogeny since the flood would have melted the
surface of the planet.

Can't get over the boiling of everything?

>>> People have suggested a green-house effect as being the source of
>>> superior plants and animals Pre-flood and that has been 'uncovered'.
>>
>> Define 'superior'. Define 'pre-flood'.
>>
> Much bigger, and living longer.

No evidence that this applies to human beings. And lots of 'bigger'
animals co-existed with small humans. Go figure.

>>> Carbon amounts may have been completely different, pre-Flood....
>>
>> Carbon amounts may have been exactly the same, pre-Floode.
>
> Not according to a lot of theory.

How are you using the word 'theory'? It doesn't seem to be in the
scientific sense of 'proven to such a degree as to make it perverse to
withhold provisional assent'.

> A lot is written on the carbon
> dating finds and methods and why they are so diverse.

Yes, working in archaeology some time ago, I read quite a bit on the
issues of carbon dating and what affects 14C dating. It's a very
well-established science. If you would be willing to tell me some of the
'lot that is written' that you think calls the accuracy and precision of
14C dating into question, I'd be willing to address those issues. It's
not as though any of it is a secret--at least not on the science side.

[Caranx latus]

You might like to acquaint yourself with the 'greenhouse effect' and
with 'relative humidity' (specifically 'dew point').

>> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
>> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
>> rainfall. Why is that?
>>
> Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
> out. Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?

Fictional characters rarely do.

>>>> Do the math, and get back to me.
>>
>>>>>>> Whatever math you use, the water had to be in the atmosphere
>>
>>>>>> Nope. The atmosphere would reach saturation point long before all
>>>>>> Earth's water could evaporate into it.
>>
>>>>> Non-sequitur since there was water on earth pre-Flood,
>>
>>>> Yup. And it filled the ground water table, and saturated the atmosphere.
>>>> Not enough for Ye Floode waters.
>>
>>> I have no idea what ye are speaking of.
>>
>>>>> and it doesn't
>>>>> say how long water came there....or even by what means.
>>
>>>> Guess.
>>
>>> Read a book. You might find some.
>>
>> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
>> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
>> natural sequalia.
>>
>>
> Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
> topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
> and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
> science community. IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.

I'd ask you to provide a few specific examples, but you're not going to.

>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>> here in some form.
>>
>>>>>> Which it did from the formation of the Earth, from chemical and
>>>>>> biological action, and by comets and asteroids.
>>
>>>>> All have been opined. But you can't preclude a canopy of moisture,
>>>>> can you?
>>
>>>> Yup. A canopy large enough to hold enough water to cover the Earth would
>>>> be too thick to allow light to penetrate to Earth's surface. Sort of
>>>> screws up photosynthesis. You know, the process by which grass grew for
>>>> Abel's sheep, and the process by which crops grew for Cain's farm. Long
>>>> *before* Ye Floode.
>>
>>> Narrow-minded canopy you have there.
>>
>> Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
>> Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?
>>
> Can't get over the waters from above and waters from below?

Can't get past the concept of 'fiction'?

[wgroom]

I can understand you don't know about the dimensions of the
atmosphere. Is that too difficult for you?

wg

[wgroom]

Because he can't do theory yet.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 22, 4:59 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net>  wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 2:39 PM, wgroom wrote:
> >>> On Mar 21, 11:03 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net>    wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> That's not what the Bible claims. The claim is that the water would
> >>>> 'pass' *all* mountain elevations.
>
> >>> Yes, but that doesn't mention what would occur after the rain
> >>> surpassed them as far as mountains being newly formed or accentuated.
>
> >> You appear to think that Ye Floode included a massive, perhaps
> >> world-wide, orogeny event. Yet that couldn't have happened without the
> >> Earth heating enough to evaporate the waters of the Floode. Not to
> >> mention, of course, that the rate of rainfall required by Ye Floode
> >> would have in itself raised the temperature of the Earth by hundreds of
> >> degrees Celsius.
>
> > Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident.  Wind is
> > mentioned.  You mention heat.  Now if the rain/evaporation process
> > started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
> > 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>
> If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
> movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?
>

Why would or should I? You can't prove the origin of water here. I
do have books on those. Which do you want recommended to you...as it
applies to the Great Flood?

> >> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
> >> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
> >> rainfall. Why is that?
>
> > Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
> > out.  Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?
>
> That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
> suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
> have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.
>

It's really simple. Before the flood is was a very plentiful
greenhouse, and after there was lots of ice, rain, geology changes,
and a evaporation/rain process.

> If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
> that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
> you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?
>
> If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
> laws, then it didn't happen. Period.
>

Oh ,it happened.

> <snip>
>
> >> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
> >> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
> >> natural sequalia.
>
> > Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
> > topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
> > and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
> > science community.  IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that there
> are still questions in science? Well, duh. Of course there are.
>

And they can't counteract the obvious finds of quick, catastrophic
finds by the scientists who research the Flood.

> Are you trying to say that there are some facts that confound scientists
> and point to a great world-wide flood? I'd like to read something about
> that.
>

Just go to Amazon or Alibris and put in Genesis Flood, and you can
start there.....

> I can, in fact, read pretty well. I've read a number of books of the
> sort you have been telling us to read. Every one of them, in the places
> where they claim to have facts that modern science can't explain, but
> which facts are explained by 'creation scientists'--in every case,
> further reading has shown that they are wrong in those claims. Every time.
>

Do tell, So why are you asking for recommenations??

> If you've got better sources, name them. But so far, what you've
> referenced savors too much of the above problem.
>

We're still waiting for your 'a' source...that would directly in great
detail counteract the Flood scientists.

> <snip>
>
> >>> Narrow-minded canopy you have there.
>
> >> Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
> >> Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?
>
> > Can't get over the waters from above and waters from below?
>
> Not enough water, unless the land was essentially flat. If the land was
> essentially flat, the orogeny since the flood would have melted the
> surface of the planet.
>

Crazy.

> Can't get over the boiling of everything?
>
> >>> People have suggested a green-house effect as being the source of
> >>> superior plants and animals Pre-flood and that has been 'uncovered'.
>
> >> Define 'superior'. Define 'pre-flood'.
>
> > Much bigger, and living longer.
>
> No evidence that this applies to human beings. And lots of 'bigger'
> animals co-existed with small humans. Go figure.
>
> >>> Carbon amounts may have been completely different, pre-Flood....
>
> >> Carbon amounts may have been exactly the same, pre-Floode.
>
> > Not according to a lot of theory.
>
> How are you using the word 'theory'? It doesn't seem to be in the
> scientific sense of 'proven to such a degree as to make it perverse to
> withhold provisional assent'.
>
> > A lot is written on the carbon
> > dating finds and methods and why they are so diverse.
>
> Yes, working in archaeology some time ago, I read quite a bit on the
> issues of carbon dating and what affects 14C dating. It's a very
> well-established science. If you would be willing to tell me some of the
> 'lot that is written' that you think calls the accuracy and precision of
> 14C dating into question, I'd be willing to address those issues. It's
> not as though any of it is a secret--at least not on the science side.

The books relate many specific things on all sorts of dating methods,
some being able to show established history to counteract the
variances in the dating by radioactivy finds.

wg

[wgroom]

Dewpoint is thought of being spoke of in the GoE account and is
explained in the books in a scientific way.

wg

[Caranx latus]

On 24/03/2012 10:16 AM, wgroom wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:16 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident. Wind is
>>> mentioned. You mention heat. Now if the rain/evaporation process
>>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
>>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>>
>> You might like to acquaint yourself with the 'greenhouse effect' and
>> with 'relative humidity' (specifically 'dew point').

<snip>

> Dewpoint is thought of being spoke of in the GoE account and is
> explained in the books in a scientific way.

Unless you plan on being coy, go on...

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/24/2012 9:11 AM, wgroom wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:59 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:

<snip>

>>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident. Wind is
>>> mentioned. You mention heat. Now if the rain/evaporation process
>>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
>>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>>
>> If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
>> movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?
>>
> Why would or should I?

Because the heat of those two processes would have made life impossible
during and after the flood. Fairly important to Noah, et al., eh?

> You can't prove the origin of water here. I
> do have books on those. Which do you want recommended to you...as it
> applies to the Great Flood?

Something written by a physicist would be a nice change of pace.

>>>> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
>>>> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
>>>> rainfall. Why is that?
>>
>>> Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
>>> out. Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
>> suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
>> have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.
>>
> It's really simple. Before the flood is was a very plentiful
> greenhouse, and after there was lots of ice, rain, geology changes,
> and a evaporation/rain process.

Which would have required a suspension of the laws of nature during the
Floode. It is really simple--but your side requires miracles, not science.

>> If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
>> that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
>> you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?
>>
>> If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
>> laws, then it didn't happen. Period.
>>
> Oh ,it happened.

That's the issue to be determined. You are begging the question. Not a
very intellectually honest thing to do.

>>>> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
>>>> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
>>>> natural sequalia.
>>
>>> Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
>>> topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
>>> and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
>>> science community. IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that there
>> are still questions in science? Well, duh. Of course there are.
>>
> And they can't counteract the obvious finds of quick, catastrophic
> finds by the scientists who research the Flood.

I have studied a very large number of such finds of the results of
catastrophes. None of them were world-wide; passing few covered more
than a few hundred square miles; and the temporal ranges seldom or never
overlap. You can't boot-strap any of those finds into a world-wide,
catastrophic Floode.

>> Are you trying to say that there are some facts that confound scientists
>> and point to a great world-wide flood? I'd like to read something about
>> that.
>>
> Just go to Amazon or Alibris and put in Genesis Flood, and you can
> start there.....

Nope. Your claim, your duty to supply supporting data. I've even said
I'd take your references for a spin, if I haven't already read them.

>> I can, in fact, read pretty well. I've read a number of books of the
>> sort you have been telling us to read. Every one of them, in the places
>> where they claim to have facts that modern science can't explain, but
>> which facts are explained by 'creation scientists'--in every case,
>> further reading has shown that they are wrong in those claims. Every time.
>>
> Do tell, So why are you asking for recommenations??

I have an open mind. If you have some stunning work that actually
provides a strong scientific support for Ye Floode, I'll read it if I
can find it for free (library, on-line, etc). I just don't have the
money to buy books--unless I can be stimulated to think I'll read
something worth investing my extremely limited funds.

>> If you've got better sources, name them. But so far, what you've
>> referenced savors too much of the above problem.
>>
> We're still waiting for your 'a' source...that would directly in great
> detail counteract the Flood scientists.

Go to Amazon, Alibris, or your local college library. Check the
Talk.Origins.com web site. Google some actual scientists wrt the
impossibility of the Floode.

>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Narrow-minded canopy you have there.
>>
>>>> Nope. That's what your canopy would have done, had it existed. Yet the
>>>> Bible makes no mention of it. Why is that?
>>
>>> Can't get over the waters from above and waters from below?
>>
>> Not enough water, unless the land was essentially flat. If the land was
>> essentially flat, the orogeny since the flood would have melted the
>> surface of the planet.
>>
> Crazy.

Nope. Physics. Look into it sometime.

<snip>

>>> A lot is written on the carbon
>>> dating finds and methods and why they are so diverse.
>>
>> Yes, working in archaeology some time ago, I read quite a bit on the
>> issues of carbon dating and what affects 14C dating. It's a very
>> well-established science. If you would be willing to tell me some of the
>> 'lot that is written' that you think calls the accuracy and precision of
>> 14C dating into question, I'd be willing to address those issues. It's
>> not as though any of it is a secret--at least not on the science side.
>
> The books relate many specific things on all sorts of dating methods,
> some being able to show established history to counteract the
> variances in the dating by radioactivy finds.

So you can't provide even one example out of that whole 'lot that is
written' to show a problem with 14C dating. And you now are extending
that inability to other radiometric dating methods.

Maybe you should look some up and tell me how that calls any sort of
radiometric dating into question. Hell, *I* know a fair bit about the
problems of radiometric dating; and I also know how many of them are
dealt with. And I also know something about the limitations of some
methods. Do you? I mean really know, not just take the word of
anti-science religious folks?

[curtjester1]

Abrupt is better. You need to actually read up on science and the
Bible. There is no stone left unturned.

wg

[curtjester1]

On Mar 24, 8:58 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 9:11 AM, wgroom wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 4:59 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident.  Wind is
> >>> mentioned.  You mention heat.  Now if the rain/evaporation process
> >>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
> >>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>
> >> If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
> >> movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?
>
> > Why would or should I?
>
> Because the heat of those two processes would have made life impossible
> during and after the flood. Fairly important to Noah, et al., eh?
>

Estimated temperatures pre-Flood in the 70's, somewhat colder
afterwards.....

> > You can't prove the origin of water here.  I
> > do have books on those.  Which do you want recommended to you...as it
> > applies to the Great Flood?
>
> Something written by a physicist would be a nice change of pace.
>

Physicists are guaranteed to approach things correctly. Many might
assume that the environment today had to be the same as yesterday.
Could that be a huge fatal flaw in their theories and conclusions?

> >>>> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
> >>>> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
> >>>> rainfall. Why is that?
>
> >>> Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
> >>> out.  Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?
>
> >> That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
> >> suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
> >> have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.
>
> > It's really simple.  Before the flood is was a very plentiful
> > greenhouse, and after there was lots of ice, rain, geology changes,
> > and a evaporation/rain process.
>
> Which would have required a suspension of the laws of nature during the
> Floode. It is really simple--but your side requires miracles, not science.
>

Who knows if it wasn't? It doesn't say that the waters above were
finite or unmanuervable. Of course when ones holding of water
theories are thought of as small dimensional, maybe they can't get
over their basic assumptions.

> >> If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
> >> that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
> >> you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?
>
> >> If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
> >> laws, then it didn't happen. Period.
>
> > Oh ,it happened.
>
> That's the issue to be determined. You are begging the question. Not a
> very intellectually honest thing to do.
>

It happened. If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened. Science-
proofwise with oceanography, geography, fresh fossil finds,, are very
compelling. Witness accounts are plentiful. History is extremely
compelling of flood accounts that could never in light years be
attributed to local floods.

> >>>> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
> >>>> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
> >>>> natural sequalia.
>
> >>> Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
> >>> topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
> >>> and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
> >>> science community.  IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.
>
> >> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that there
> >> are still questions in science? Well, duh. Of course there are.
>
> > And they can't counteract the obvious finds of quick, catastrophic
> > finds by the scientists who research the Flood.
>
> I have studied a very large number of such finds of the results of
> catastrophes. None of them were world-wide; passing few covered more
> than a few hundred square miles; and the temporal ranges seldom or never
> overlap. You can't boot-strap any of those finds into a world-wide,
> catastrophic Floode.
>

The same finds are earthwide. The books are extensive in those finds,
and yet you diatribe general dogmatism. Why?

> >> Are you trying to say that there are some facts that confound scientists
> >> and point to a great world-wide flood? I'd like to read something about
> >> that.
>
> > Just go to Amazon or Alibris and put in Genesis Flood, and you can
> > start there.....
>
> Nope. Your claim, your duty to supply supporting data. I've even said
> I'd take your references for a spin, if I haven't already read them.
>

Not my claim. I just report was is written. Such brazen attempts to
provide an out for research on your contentions is well noted and
known to be lacking in direct confrontation of what is written.

> >> I can, in fact, read pretty well. I've read a number of books of the
> >> sort you have been telling us to read. Every one of them, in the places
> >> where they claim to have facts that modern science can't explain, but
> >> which facts are explained by 'creation scientists'--in every case,
> >> further reading has shown that they are wrong in those claims. Every time.
>
> > Do tell,  So why are you asking for recommenations??
>
> I have an open mind. If you have some stunning work that actually
> provides a strong scientific support for Ye Floode, I'll read it if I
> can find it for free (library, on-line, etc). I just don't have the
> money to buy books--unless I can be stimulated to think I'll read
> something worth investing my extremely limited funds.
>

It's all there, slam dunks, compelling finds, no stone left unturned
as far as any issue conjured up by the human mind.

> >> If you've got better sources, name them. But so far, what you've
> >> referenced savors too much of the above problem.
>
> > We're still waiting for your 'a' source...that would directly in great
> > detail counteract the Flood scientists.
>
> Go to Amazon, Alibris, or your local college library. Check the
> Talk.Origins.com web site. Google some actual scientists wrt the
> impossibility of the Floode.
>
>

Why? They aren't Christians. They usually have such a history in
their fields of change of theory that some Noah folk duly give out,
that it seems rather futile and unnecesaary.

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:56:24 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<5ed13037-425d-49bf...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:

>On Mar 22, 2:52 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2012 2:19 PM, wgroom wrote:
>> > On Mar 19, 6:59 pm, Ralph<mmman...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

...

How smugly you repeat your ignorant nonsense. If you were not so proud
of your inability to learn any scientific facts, you would be
embarrassed by your silly claims.

The evidence (something you refuse to consider) shows that your claims
are false: Noah's Flood never happened. Preach your lies all you want,
but they will be nothing but lies ever.

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/24/2012 10:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:58 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 3/24/2012 9:11 AM, wgroom wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 4:59 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident. Wind is
>>>>> mentioned. You mention heat. Now if the rain/evaporation process
>>>>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
>>>>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>>
>>>> If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
>>>> movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?
>>
>>> Why would or should I?
>>
>> Because the heat of those two processes would have made life impossible
>> during and after the flood. Fairly important to Noah, et al., eh?
>>
> Estimated temperatures pre-Flood in the 70's, somewhat colder
> afterwards.....

Reference?

>>> You can't prove the origin of water here. I
>>> do have books on those. Which do you want recommended to you...as it
>>> applies to the Great Flood?
>>
>> Something written by a physicist would be a nice change of pace.
>>
> Physicists are guaranteed to approach things correctly. Many might
> assume that the environment today had to be the same as yesterday.
> Could that be a huge fatal flaw in their theories and conclusions?

No, because that's not what they think. They, and we, know that
environments have varied widely since the Earth formed.

>>>>>> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
>>>>>> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
>>>>>> rainfall. Why is that?
>>
>>>>> Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
>>>>> out. Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?
>>
>>>> That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
>>>> suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
>>>> have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.
>>
>>> It's really simple. Before the flood is was a very plentiful
>>> greenhouse, and after there was lots of ice, rain, geology changes,
>>> and a evaporation/rain process.
>>
>> Which would have required a suspension of the laws of nature during the
>> Floode. It is really simple--but your side requires miracles, not science.
>>
> Who knows if it wasn't? It doesn't say that the waters above were
> finite or unmanuervable. Of course when ones holding of water
> theories are thought of as small dimensional, maybe they can't get
> over their basic assumptions.

Mumbo jumbo. Or maybe mumbled jumble. certainly not coherent.

>>>> If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
>>>> that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
>>>> you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?
>>
>>>> If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
>>>> laws, then it didn't happen. Period.
>>
>>> Oh ,it happened.
>>
>> That's the issue to be determined. You are begging the question. Not a
>> very intellectually honest thing to do.
>>
> It happened. If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened. Science-
> proofwise with oceanography, geography, fresh fossil finds,, are very
> compelling. Witness accounts are plentiful. History is extremely
> compelling of flood accounts that could never in light years be
> attributed to local floods.

Sorry, reality intrudes on your little scenario. The Bible is not
God--one should not worship it, as you clearly do.

>>>>>> I have. Even some you recommended. I only found guesses and assertions
>>>>>> there--no valid evidence sufficient to support Ye Floode or any of its
>>>>>> natural sequalia.
>>
>>>>> Besides guesses and assertions there are many finds within geology,
>>>>> topographys, oceanographys, and fossil finds that are quite poignant
>>>>> and how they do confront what others say about what they found in
>>>>> science community. IOW, you can't read very well, or don't want to.
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that there
>>>> are still questions in science? Well, duh. Of course there are.
>>
>>> And they can't counteract the obvious finds of quick, catastrophic
>>> finds by the scientists who research the Flood.
>>
>> I have studied a very large number of such finds of the results of
>> catastrophes. None of them were world-wide; passing few covered more
>> than a few hundred square miles; and the temporal ranges seldom or never
>> overlap. You can't boot-strap any of those finds into a world-wide,
>> catastrophic Floode.
>>
> The same finds are earthwide. The books are extensive in those finds,
> and yet you diatribe general dogmatism. Why?

Because I know the science; you clearly don't.

At least you clearly can't tell me where 'the books are extensive in
those finds' can be found. What you've referenced so far are laughably
inadequate.

>>>> Are you trying to say that there are some facts that confound scientists
>>>> and point to a great world-wide flood? I'd like to read something about
>>>> that.
>>
>>> Just go to Amazon or Alibris and put in Genesis Flood, and you can
>>> start there.....
>>
>> Nope. Your claim, your duty to supply supporting data. I've even said
>> I'd take your references for a spin, if I haven't already read them.
>>
> Not my claim. I just report was is written. Such brazen attempts to
> provide an out for research on your contentions is well noted and
> known to be lacking in direct confrontation of what is written.

Nice. Bullshit, but nice.

>>>> I can, in fact, read pretty well. I've read a number of books of the
>>>> sort you have been telling us to read. Every one of them, in the places
>>>> where they claim to have facts that modern science can't explain, but
>>>> which facts are explained by 'creation scientists'--in every case,
>>>> further reading has shown that they are wrong in those claims. Every time.
>>
>>> Do tell, So why are you asking for recommenations??
>>
>> I have an open mind. If you have some stunning work that actually
>> provides a strong scientific support for Ye Floode, I'll read it if I
>> can find it for free (library, on-line, etc). I just don't have the
>> money to buy books--unless I can be stimulated to think I'll read
>> something worth investing my extremely limited funds.
>>
> It's all there, slam dunks, compelling finds, no stone left unturned
> as far as any issue conjured up by the human mind.

You are funny, Jester.

>>>> If you've got better sources, name them. But so far, what you've
>>>> referenced savors too much of the above problem.
>>
>>> We're still waiting for your 'a' source...that would directly in great
>>> detail counteract the Flood scientists.
>>
>> Go to Amazon, Alibris, or your local college library. Check the
>> Talk.Origins.com web site. Google some actual scientists wrt the
>> impossibility of the Floode.
>>
>>
> Why? They aren't Christians. They usually have such a history in
> their fields of change of theory that some Noah folk duly give out,
> that it seems rather futile and unnecesaary.

Here's where your Bibliolatry undoes you. You see, I worship God, not
the Bible.

No answer? I wonder why?

[Mike Painter]

On 3/24/2012 7:02 AM, wgroom wrote:
<snip>

>>> wg
>>
>> Sniping at 'his word' is one of the easiest tasks there is, for 'his
>> word' is full of holes:-)))).
>
> Because he can't do theory yet.
>

"do theory"

giggle

[Mike Painter]

On 3/24/2012 7:11 AM, wgroom wrote:
<snip>

> Why would or should I? You can't prove the origin of water here. I
> do have books on those. Which do you want recommended to you...as it
> applies to the Great Flood?
>

You still don't understand the basics of science.
<snip>

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:11:20 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<5add2a67-7278-49af...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>:

>On Mar 22, 4:59 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 12:29 PM, wgroom wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net>  wrote:

<snip>

>> >> You appear to think that Ye Floode included a massive, perhaps
>> >> world-wide, orogeny event. Yet that couldn't have happened without the
>> >> Earth heating enough to evaporate the waters of the Floode. Not to
>> >> mention, of course, that the rate of rainfall required by Ye Floode
>> >> would have in itself raised the temperature of the Earth by hundreds of
>> >> degrees Celsius.
>>
>> > Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident.  Wind is
>> > mentioned.  You mention heat.  Now if the rain/evaporation process
>> > started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
>> > 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>>
>> If you can't respond to the issues of orogeny, heat of tectonic
>> movements and heat of rainfall, why not just say so?
>>
>Why would or should I? You can't prove the origin of water here. I
>do have books on those. Which do you want recommended to you...as it
>applies to the Great Flood?

That you stop believing the lies of the frauds who wrote those books to
part the believers from their money. If you were remotely competent in
science, you would know that those authors are complete frauds.

>> >> But, strangely, the Bible does not mention Noah, his family, and all the
>> >> animals being par-boiled from the combined heat of the orogeny and the
>> >> rainfall. Why is that?
>>
>> > Because it mentions them building vineyards and spreading themselves
>> > out.  Guess they didn't wilt in the heat, did they?
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. Either God miracled it all, and changed or
>> suspended laws of nature in the effort, or it never happened. It would
>> have, at a minimum, boiled everything to death. And beyond.
>>
>It's really simple. Before the flood is was a very plentiful
>greenhouse, and after there was lots of ice, rain, geology changes,
>and a evaporation/rain process.

But the evidence makes it clear that the evolution of climate on earth
had no such flood involved in it. You need to stop repeating your lies
about this fictional event.

>> If you think the Floode was done by miracles, and the natural effects
>> that would have resulted if the story happened as written, then why are
>> you trying to harmonize the Floode story with scientific facts?
>>
>> If you think the Flood was done by a process that didn't suspend natural
>> laws, then it didn't happen. Period.
>>
>Oh ,it happened.

The evidence shows that the flood described in the Bible did not happen.
You have been directed to places to learn about that, but you have
chosen to listen to confidence men who make their living telling lies to
believers. Are you one of the con men or one of the suckers?

<snip>

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<7bb07fba-3c36-4a22...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:

>On Mar 24, 8:34 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2012 10:16 AM, wgroom wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 5:16 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident.  Wind is
>> >>> mentioned.  You mention heat.  Now if the rain/evaporation process
>> >>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
>> >>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>>
>> >> You might like to acquaint yourself with the 'greenhouse effect' and
>> >> with 'relative humidity' (specifically 'dew point').
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Dewpoint is thought of being spoke of in the GoE account and is
>> > explained in the books in a scientific way.

Hogwash.

>> Unless you plan on being coy, go on...
>
>Abrupt is better. You need to actually read up on science and the
>Bible. There is no stone left unturned.

I can see why you don't want to give us too many details about the lies
that the con men selling fake floods have been telling. We are competent
to recognize their lies about science. Too bad you are not.

[wgroom]

On Mar 24, 2:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism

> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <7bb07fba-3c36-4a22-8c53-109c1933e...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 24, 8:34 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 24/03/2012 10:16 AM, wgroom wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 5:16 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >>> Well, the evaporation process was pretty self-evident.  Wind is
> >> >>> mentioned.  You mention heat.  Now if the rain/evaporation process
> >> >>> started then, wouldn't that influence some of the heat when the
> >> >>> 'canopy' made it's way back up?
>
> >> >> You might like to acquaint yourself with the 'greenhouse effect' and
> >> >> with 'relative humidity' (specifically 'dew point').
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > Dewpoint is thought of being spoke of in the GoE account and is
> >> > explained in the books in a scientific way.
>
> Hogwash.
>
> >> Unless you plan on being coy, go on...
>
> >Abrupt is better.  You need to actually read up on science and the
> >Bible.  There is no stone left unturned.
>
> I can see why you don't want to give us too many details about the lies
> that the con men selling fake floods have been telling. We are competent
> to recognize their lies about science. Too bad you are not.

I'm not sure you know where the water in your bathtub comes from. Why
can't they find a beginning or a trail for the dinosaurs?

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:37:16 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<8086488f-8e8c-4c16...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>:

So you don't even understand the water cycle, let alone chemistry or
physics.

[Ralph]

Refuted by many posters.

[Ralph]

Right, "god" can't do anything because of the obvious fact that he
doesn't exist.

[Ralph]

Say what?????? Speak in English man, not in that gibberish you call
English!!

[Ralph]

Don't worry about a trail or beginning 'groom', worry about why they
find so many from so many species.

[wgroom]

On Mar 25, 2:17 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:37:16 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> <8086488f-8e8c-4c16-a2d9-ca4c435e4...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>:

Oh it's understood. You can even find water in volcanic eruptions.
Go figure.

wg

[wgroom]

It wouldn't be compelling, but nice dodge anyway.

wg

[wgroom]

> > Dewpoint is thought of being spoke of in the GoE account and is
> > explained in the books in a scientific way.
>
> > wg
>
> Say what?????? Speak in English man, not in that gibberish you call
> English!!

Hey, if we stuck you in a greenhouse, maybe you could grow a brain!

wg

[wgroom]

They haven't attempted to comment on the dimensions of the atmosphere,
Cyclops. You might need the other eye when you go back thumbing
through the posts.

wg

[harry k]

Whereas for you, you could go to the local morgue and get one that
works far better than whatervr it is you are using.

Harry K

[harry k]

Since you seem to be ignorant of the subject:

----------------------------------------------------
http://www.dimensionsguide.com/earth-atmosphere-thickness/

"An exact measurement of the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere is
difficult, but most scientists put it at 300 miles (480 km). There are
several layers and elements in the atmosphere, 80% of which are
confined to 11 miles (16 km) of the planet’s surface. "
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. So just what are you confused about?
2. Where was that canopy? Inside the atmosphere or outside it?

Harry K

[Mike Painter]

On 3/26/2012 7:58 AM, wgroom wrote:
<snip>

>> Refuted by many posters.
>
> They haven't attempted to comment on the dimensions of the atmosphere,
> Cyclops. You might need the other eye when you go back thumbing
> through the posts.

>I have specifically brought up the dimensions of the atmosphere and even
suggested that you could ignore them in your cloud canopy idea.

The sound of crickets were heard.

[Ralph]

I think they are waiting fro you to tell us what the weight of 2.8
trillion cubic miles of water would do to the continental crust:-)))).

[Ralph]

Yes, 'groom', do you know why this is so????

[Ralph]

No dodge asshole, just answering your last post. Or are you too stupid
to realize what you have posted??

[Ralph]

Said the one who believes the world was once covered by a global 'flud'.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<4be57783-8d97-4276...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

I said that you do not understand it. I know that scientists do, but you
have made it clear that you worship ignorance of science.

[Misanthropic Curmudgeon]

On Mar 25, 4:39 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>  If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened.

As usual, you are wrong about your bible:
Genesis 11 says 'all the world spoke one langugae' and yet the
timestamp of Genesis Ch11 shows this bible-claim was wrong: there were
many languages spoken at that time. So you are wrong in your claim,
wgroom, again.

And do you really want to say the Towr of Babel was really built? So
you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

As for creating steaked goast by having goats breed while looking at
streaked rods, as Genesis also claims, is patently absurd. So you are
wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

As for Leveiticus and Deutronomy claiming hares chew a cud, enough!
So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

What about Psalms 75 saying your god holds up the earth with pillars?
So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

Or Isiah 13 which says your god causes earthquakes?!?!?! So you are
wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

Or .....

[Misanthropic Curmudgeon]

On Mar 25, 2:56 am, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> I can understand you don't know about the dimensions of the
> atmosphere.

Strange ho yourefuse to calculate/show the dimensions required to
support a 'canopy' of all this flood water then, eh?!?!?

[Caranx latus]

His comprehension of science is nonexistent. Why would you think his
mathematical abilities would be any better?

[CornstalkCrusher]

In article <7932n7diup92s5hn8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...

You are arguing with an abject idiot. The reason why he avoids your questions
is because he is an undereducated Jehovah's Witness. What little he knew about
the natural sciences went out the door when he started reading the Watchtower
literature.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe everything that is written in the Bible. When
the Bible says the earth was flooded to the point of covering the highest
mountain, they literally believe it. They believe that eight people lived on a
boat filled with at least one pair of every "kind" of animal in the world, while
they floated about for a year, as all the other animals, including humans,
drowned.

According the the Jehovah's Witness dogma, this occurred about 4300 years ago.
So, every animal living today, including humans, descended from what was
floating in one boat built a little over 4000 years ago. To get around the
dilemma that there are millions of species of animals, the JWs use the word,
"kind." So, Noah only had to carry at a least a pair of every "kind" of animal.
If he took only one kind of lizard for example, then all the lizards that exist
today descended from that one pair that was on the Ark. Same as with dogs,
cats, etc. They don't discuss what happened to the plants which could not have
survived under water for a year.

So, according to Jehovah's Witness dogma, the ice ages could never have
happened, despite the indisputable evidence, because it never rained or snowed
on earth before the flood. And, of course, all archaeological and genetic
evidence goes out the window because it conflicts with their dogma. All
scientific dating systems, including dendrochronology must be wrong because it
disagrees with their dogma. Evolution, of course, is the invention of Satan.

[Misanthropic Curmudgeon]

On Mar 28, 2:58 am, CornstalkCrusher
<CornstalkCrusher_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7932n7diup92s5hn80i97809jfkg5e8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> >wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> ><4be57783-8d97-4276-a3f7-66eceb9c0...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

Have a read about 'vegetation mats'

And you missed how saltwater fish surived in a fresh (from rainfall)
ocean.

> So, according to Jehovah's Witness dogma, the ice ages could never have
> happened, despite the indisputable evidence, because it never rained or snowed
> on earth before the flood.  And, of course, all archaeological and genetic
> evidence goes out the window because it conflicts with their dogma.  All
> scientific dating systems, including dendrochronology must be wrong because it
> disagrees with their dogma.  Evolution, of course, is the invention of Satan.

And yet their dognat - than all specied decended from these 'kinds' -
requires evolution. At a far faster rate than any scientific
proposition!

[wgroom]

> Yes, 'groom', do you know why this is so????- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Non sequitur. Having it there is only applicable that the fountains
below which erupted for the flood would have had more proof of being
there.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 26, 8:43 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> <4be57783-8d97-4276-a3f7-66eceb9c0...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

> have made it clear that you worship ignorance of science.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Quite contrare, the investigation of the earths geology has revealed
startling answers when applied to massive water force than was
previosly thought of. It answers and fits a lot, where science just
assumed things happen in small increments over eons of time.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 27, 11:08 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

> proposition!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There are salt water lakes on high mountains, just to let you know.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 26, 9:18 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:39 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >  If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened.
>
> As usual, you are wrong about your bible:
> Genesis 11 says 'all the world spoke one langugae' and yet the
> timestamp of Genesis Ch11 shows this bible-claim was wrong: there were
> many languages spoken at that time.  So you are wrong in your claim,
> wgroom, again.
>
> And do you really want to say the Towr of Babel was really built? So
> you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>
> As for creating steaked goast by having goats breed while looking at
> streaked rods, as Genesis also claims, is patently absurd. So you are
> wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>

Well, the Bible shows that Noah and the Flood were prior to all known
civilizations.

> As for Leveiticus and Deutronomy claiming hares chew a cud, enough!
> So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>

Huh?

> What about Psalms 75 saying your god holds up the earth with pillars?
> So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>

It says the circle of the earth hangs on nothing. Sometimes the Bible
uses illustrative words that can't be construed as literal.

> Or Isiah 13 which says your god causes earthquakes?!?!?! So you are
> wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>

Why?

wg

> Or .....

[wgroom]

You have attempted to, and why should we look? You have no idea how
much of the atmosphere could have been mathematic-wise to have enough
stored water for a flood...(if that is how God worked the flood).

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 27, 9:58 am, CornstalkCrusher
<CornstalkCrusher_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7932n7diup92s5hn80i97809jfkg5e8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> >wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> ><4be57783-8d97-4276-a3f7-66eceb9c0...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

> disagrees with their dogma.  Evolution, of course, is the invention of Satan.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There are several models of animals existing and what might have been
taken on the ark. There is no limit of what might have been taken and
some were taken as seven pairs. The flood evidence shows evolution is
wrong in many aspects.

wg

[Caranx latus]

No, *you* have no idea and, because you think that everyone else is as
ignorant as you, you think that no one knows.

And stop torturing the language.

[wgroom]

Idea of what? What has been suggested is one paltry example of water
with thickness and no light entry possible, theory.

That's not even suggesting what the dimensions of the canopy, the
ingredients of the canopy; in relation to what potentially be in our
atmosphere.

I already gave you some dimensions of a troposphere. You might want
to know what that is.

Amusing that your saying I am circumvating or refusing when you arent'
even approaching the subject in any meaningful way.

And yes, there are/is/was a canopy dimension suggested in one of the
books that I read, and you can read up on that if one is interested.
I am not going to tell you, as all it is to me, is someone's opinion.

> And stop torturing the language.

And stop using action words in your sentence. You are no authority
figure for one, and your language is the type of language a gang
member would use.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 27, 7:58 am, CornstalkCrusher
<CornstalkCrusher_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7932n7diup92s5hn80i97809jfkg5e8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> >wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> ><4be57783-8d97-4276-a3f7-66eceb9c0...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

Many books take on ice ages, where it shows the evidence of flood in
their samples. It also is quite amusing that estimates of ice ages
usually end in 100's of thousands of years which convolutes what their
trying to prove because they believe the earth is 4+ billion years
old. They also seem to be not willing to tackle the positive proof
that there was vegetation growing at the poles.

wg

[Caranx latus]

[Caranx latus]

If you want me to do the calculations, at least tell me what depth of
water you need to have deposited as rain. That's all I need. Oh dear,
you aren't going to tell me, are you?

> Amusing that your saying I am circumvating or refusing when you arent'
> even approaching the subject in any meaningful way.

Neither are you, jester. Neither are you.

> And yes, there are/is/was a canopy dimension suggested in one of the
> books that I read, and you can read up on that if one is interested.
> I am not going to tell you, as all it is to me, is someone's opinion.
>
> > And stop torturing the language.
>
> And stop using action words in your sentence.

You want me to write sentences without verbs? Why would I want to
emulate you?

> You are no authority
> figure for one, and your language is the type of language a gang
> member would use.

Oh, poor you.

[Misanthropic Curmudgeon]

On Mar 29, 4:59 am, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> There are several models of animals existing and what might have been
> taken on the ark.  There is no limit of what might have been taken

Ah, again you are wrong:
- space on this alledged ark is a limitation,
- sanitation this alledged ark is a limitation,
- food storageon on this alledged ark is a limitation,
- animals eating each other (thats how the dinosaurs became
extin!?!?!) on this alledged ark is a limitation,
- etc ....

> The flood evidence shows evolution is wrong in many aspects

What "flood evidence"? You've not presented any!.

[Misanthropic Curmudgeon]

On Mar 29, 4:59 am, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

And what happens when you mic salt water and fresh water all together
- how do the fresh water fish live and salt water fish live?

[wgroom]

On Mar 28, 5:45 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

I imagine a lot live and a lot die. The dying ones are proof of the
flood as their fossils show that. And well the others fill up our
lakes, streams and oceans.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 28, 5:49 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

Look it up. I'm giving you what has been said in book. Just have to
read em. Laziness your best hobby?

wg

[Caranx latus]

On Mar 29, 2:06 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:45 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

<snip>

> > And what happens when you mic salt water and fresh water all together
> > - how do the fresh water fish live and salt water fish live?
>
> I imagine a lot live and a lot die.  The dying ones are proof of the
> flood as their fossils show that.

Because, as is common knowledge, fish don't die except in massive
floods.

[Caranx latus]

Umm... no, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't keep telling us to go
out and buy the books.

[wgroom]

As I told you they have been estimated by who the authors chose to use
in their books. I guess your 'interest' really isn't interest.

wg

[wgroom]

On Mar 26, 7:20 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

How come your compadres don't rail on people who really do butcher the
spellins and language? Hmmm

[wgroom]

You're not doing you best here to disprove the massive, earthwide
flood. Remember Mt. Ararat has a salt lake on it.

wg

[wgroom]

You're right, no I'm not. I already told you to get all the info you
go there. I give partial here. Selective reading your strong suit?

wg

[Caranx latus]

I wasn't aware of that but I'll accept that to be the case.

There's a salt lake in California as well. It's called the Salton Sea,
and it is so salty that very few organisms can survive in it. The
surface of the lake is below sea level so the water can't drain
anywhere and the salts that enter the lake in fresh water streams
remain while the water evaporates, So the lake gets saltier and
saltier. "Hogwash!" you say? "The Flood!" you say?

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea>:
"The creation of the Salton Sea of today started in 1905, when heavy
rainfall and snowmelt caused the Colorado River to swell, overrunning
a set of headgates for the Alamo Canal. The resulting flood poured
down the canal and breached an Imperial Valley dike, eroding two
watercourses, the New River in the west, and the Alamo River in the
east, each about 60 miles (97 km) long. Over a period of approximately
two years these two newly created rivers sporadically carried the
entire volume of the Colorado River into the Salton Sink."

The Salton Sea is a little more than 100 years old. It was originally
filled with fresh water. It is now saltier than seawater simply
because the salts carried into the lake in minute quantities by fresh
water aren't able to evaporate out like the water itself can.

How's that for specific?

And now to generalize. Any body of water into which fresh water flows,
but from which there is no outlet to the ocean, will eventually become
a salt lake. The Dead Sea's surface, like the Salton Sea, is below sea
level. The Great Salt Lake in Utah has no outlet to the ocean. The
Caspian Sea has no outlet to the ocean. Lake Van in Turkey has no
outlet to the ocean. If Mount Ararat has a salt lake on it, so what?

By the way, I can find no reference to a salt lake on Ararat. If you
have a reference to that, I'd like to see it. Lake Van is often
identified on the same web page as Mt Ararat, but they're separated by
about 60 miles or so.

[Greg Carr]

On Mar 26, 6:18 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon

<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:39 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >  If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened.
>
> As usual, you are wrong about your bible:
> Genesis 11 says 'all the world spoke one langugae' and yet the
> timestamp of Genesis Ch11 shows this bible-claim was wrong: there were
> many languages spoken at that time.  So you are wrong in your claim,
> wgroom, again.

What timestamp?

>
> And do you really want to say the Towr of Babel was really built? So
> you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

I say the Tower Of Babel was real.

>
> As for creating steaked goast by having goats breed while looking at
> streaked rods, as Genesis also claims, is patently absurd. So you are
> wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

Have a cite for that?

>
> As for Leveiticus and Deutronomy claiming hares chew a cud, enough!
> So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

>
> What about Psalms 75 saying your god holds up the earth with pillars?
> So you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

A bit of poetic license. It says elsewhere in the OT that the earth is
a sphere hanging on nothing.

>
> Or Isiah 13 which says your god causes earthquakes?!?!?! So you are
> wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.

Sure GOD can create earthquakes but most are the result of natural
forces.
>
> Or .....

[harry k]

On Mar 29, 11:25 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:18 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:39 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > >  If it was in the recorded Bible, it happened.
>
> > As usual, you are wrong about your bible:
> > Genesis 11 says 'all the world spoke one langugae' and yet the
> > timestamp of Genesis Ch11 shows this bible-claim was wrong: there were
> > many languages spoken at that time.  So you are wrong in your claim,
> > wgroom, again.
>
> What timestamp?
>
>
>
> > And do you really want to say the Towr of Babel was really built? So
> > you are wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>
> I say the Tower Of Babel was real.
>
>
>
> > As for creating steaked goast by having goats breed while looking at
> > streaked rods, as Genesis also claims, is patently absurd. So you are
> > wrong in your claim, wgroom, again.
>
> Have a cite for that?
>
>

So you really believe such an asinine claim is true? The mind boggles
at how creationists can swallow whole galaxies of absurdities while
ignoring a simple fact.

Harry K

[wgroom]

I know not where I got the Ararat salted lake from. Maybe Lake Kop?
Maybe Van. I think there's another big one up there. Not sure what
book or how to verify it.

wg

[wgroom]

It's a sign of the last days...that there would be earthquakes in
diverse places...all over the earth. Now, a massive flood could have
set the earth off in many cases. Some have said the axis was set off
3 degrees and has taken centuries to try to right itself. A huge
amount of natural effects could have come from the flood, like lots of
ice, winds, inclimatic weather..as well as earthquakes. But the the
true worshiper and adherent of the Bible, we can rest assure that when
God says he will make all things new, we can trust it...for our "new
earth."

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

I have looked up the evidence about the supposed Flood of Noah. The
evidence showed without any question that it never happened, that it
never could have happened as described. It is a myth that modern
"believers" have turned into a fraudulent test of faith. Claiming that
Noah's Flood happened is telling a lie. There is absolutely no question
that it did not happen and that you have absolutely no evidence to
support your false claim that it did. We've seen you try to duck that
fact for weeks, but it will not change.

We know you are preaching lies.

[wgroom]

No, I, we, or they, are not. There is much written on all earths
environmental structures having been impacted by the Flood. It's rich
in evidence, and there is no other environmental phenomenon that can
be attributed to it, but the Flood.

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>

Oh, yes, you and they are.

>There is much written on all earths
>environmental structures having been impacted by the Flood.

It's hogwash since the physical evidence shows that no such Flood ever
occured. I don't really care what religious zealots write about a
fictional myth. It will continue not to have happened.

>It's rich
>in evidence, and there is no other environmental phenomenon that can
>be attributed to it, but the Flood.

You are either an unrepentant liar or (not an exclusive or) one of the
most ignorant fools on earth. You know nothing about science and
scientific evidence and repeatedly show us that with your
religiously-fraudulent nonsense.

[wgroom]

Evidences for the Genesis Flood
a. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level do to oceanic waters
having flooded over the continents.
b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.
c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.
d. Sediment transported long distances.
e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.
f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.

Now, I know it's a little too much for you, but even you can read
about it in A Pocket Guide to The Global Flood.

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>

Absolutely none at all.

>a. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level do to oceanic waters
>having flooded over the continents.

False. The fossil locations are a result of uplift.

>b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.

False. In various localized events that occurred at different times. No
such event occurred globally.

>c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.

False. You are again conflating evidence for local events that happened
over a millions of years with your false doctrine of a single event.

>d. Sediment transported long distances.

False. Again, all evidence about sediment moving varies by millions of
years from location to location.

>e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.

False. Erosion happens at differing rates consistent with the scientific
models. There is no evidence for any world-wide erosion that fits your
false doctrine.

>f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

False. Geologically rapid is nothing remotely like the error-filled
doctrine that Noah's Flood happened.

>g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.

False. Let's start with the fact that this breakup came long before
people.

>Now, I know it's a little too much for you, but even you can read
>about it in A Pocket Guide to The Global Flood.

I have read enough lies from religious frauds like that. Ken Ham and his
merry band of greedy liars at Answers in Genesis know that they are
preaching lies to make money. Ken Ham came to the United States from
Australia so he could make more money deluding believers with his lies.
He has been successful beyond his wildest dreams, but he is still
telling lies.

[Ralph]

Sea creatures are fossilized in mountainous areas because they were once
under water.

> b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.

Rapid burial of how many plants and animals??? It would have to be most
of the ones which lived at the time and there is no evidence for that
type of fossilization.

> c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.

But not globally.

> d. Sediment transported long distances.

Same as above

> e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.

In what locations?

> f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

The geologic record has no such record of this event.

> g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.

The land was not a solid mass in the beginning. The well known break-up
of the continents occurred after they had joined together, not because
it was one solid mass. As it was, you can see the individual continents
when they were joined as Pangaea. Actually there have been several
continental splits in the history of the earth.

> Now, I know it's a little too much for you, but even you can read
> about it in A Pocket Guide to The Global Flood.
>
> wg

As shown above you can stick that little pocket guide up your ass
because that is all it is worth!

[Mike Painter]

On 4/4/2012 10:04 AM, wgroom wrote:
<snip>

>
> Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> a. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level do to oceanic waters
> having flooded over the continents.
> b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.
> c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.
> d. Sediment transported long distances.
> e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.
> f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
> g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.

You have posted this before.
a. and e. have been explained over and over to you by different people
backed by science and you ignore the answers.

The rest certainly happen in local floods but there is no global
indication.

[wgroom]

All your Falses are False!

wg

[wgroom]

This Pocket Guide goes into all the explanation that will de-program
you. You can all get a bigger book with more details to, for those
complaining they can't find their specific answer.

wg

[wgroom]

>
> >>> There is much written on all earths
> >>> environmental structures having been impacted by the Flood.
> >> It's hogwash since the physical evidence shows that no such Flood ever
> >> occured. I don't really care what religious zealots write about a
> >> fictional myth. It will continue not to have happened.
>
> >>> It's rich
> >>> in evidence, and there is no other environmental phenomenon that can
> >>> be attributed to it, but the Flood.
> >> You are either an unrepentant liar or (not an exclusive or) one of the
> >> most ignorant fools on earth. You know nothing about science and
> >> scientific evidence and repeatedly show us that with your
> >> religiously-fraudulent nonsense.
> > Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> > a. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level do to oceanic waters
> > having flooded over the continents.
>
> Sea creatures are fossilized in mountainous areas because they were once
> under water.
>

Yes, like in the Himalayas that prove that it was under water!

> > b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.
>
> Rapid burial of how many plants and animals??? It would have to be most
> of the ones which lived at the time and there is no evidence for that
> type of fossilization.
>

All sorts of them. All of them transported. Many in sudden death
situations. Many where they shouldn't be together, normally.

> > c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.
>
> But not globally.
>

Yes, globally. Long, long, transportations.

> > d. Sediment transported long distances.
>
> Same as above
>
> > e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.
>
> In what locations?
>

Stratas are different layers atop each other. You need erosion to
prove longevity. There was none...so the layersings happened in a
short period of time. Period.

> > f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
>
> The geologic record has no such record of this event.
>

Yes, it does, because the slow method doesn't even fit for the
layerings.

> > g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.
>
> The land was not a solid mass in the beginning. The well known break-up
> of the continents occurred after they had joined together, not because
> it was one solid mass. As it was, you can see the individual continents
> when they were joined as Pangaea. Actually there have been several
> continental splits in the history of the earth.
>

It was solid. Are you saying the continents were apart and then
together???!!! Oh, please.

> > Now, I know it's a little too much for you, but even you can read
> > about it in A Pocket Guide to The Global Flood.
>
> > wg
>
> As shown above you can stick that little pocket guide up your ass
> because that is all it is worth!

You can't even begin to understand your mis-guided geological concepts
until you read it. It explains how you've been duped.

wg

[Mike Painter]

If science or rational thought relied on the contents of a single book,
then Superman would be helping Batman

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:41:28 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>

So you are just a mindless religious fool who hates science and refuses
to ever consider evidence because you prefer the lies of con men who
make you feel good about the lies of your religion.

You need to repent of your lies and your war on science.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:47:18 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>
>>

>> >>> There is much written on all earths
>> >>> environmental structures having been impacted by the Flood.
>> >> It's hogwash since the physical evidence shows that no such Flood ever
>> >> occured. I don't really care what religious zealots write about a
>> >> fictional myth. It will continue not to have happened.
>>
>> >>> It's rich
>> >>> in evidence, and there is no other environmental phenomenon that can
>> >>> be attributed to it, but the Flood.
>> >> You are either an unrepentant liar or (not an exclusive or) one of the
>> >> most ignorant fools on earth. You know nothing about science and
>> >> scientific evidence and repeatedly show us that with your
>> >> religiously-fraudulent nonsense.
>> > Evidences for the Genesis Flood
>> > a. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level do to oceanic waters
>> > having flooded over the continents.
>>
>> Sea creatures are fossilized in mountainous areas because they were once
>> under water.
>>
>Yes, like in the Himalayas that prove that it was under water!

Yes, before the plate that the South Asian subcontinent slammed into the
Eurasian plate. It was under water at normal sea level.

>> > b. Rapid burial of plants and animals.
>>
>> Rapid burial of how many plants and animals??? It would have to be most
>> of the ones which lived at the time and there is no evidence for that
>> type of fossilization.
>>
>All sorts of them. All of them transported. Many in sudden death
>situations. Many where they shouldn't be together, normally.
>

SO you claim. Where is the evidence. Direct us to a journal article
about this.

>
>> > c. Rapidly deposted sediment layers spread across vast areas.
>>
>> But not globally.
>>
>Yes, globally. Long, long, transportations.

Journal reference please.

>> > d. Sediment transported long distances.
>>
>> Same as above
>>
>> > e. Rapid or no erosion between strata.
>>
>> In what locations?
>>
>Stratas are different layers atop each other. You need erosion to
>prove longevity. There was none...so the layersings happened in a
>short period of time. Period.

Not at all. You have no understanding of the process and the liars who
conned you did a terrible job of telling a believeable lie. Try again.

>> > f. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
>>
>> The geologic record has no such record of this event.
>>
>Yes, it does, because the slow method doesn't even fit for the
>layerings.

That makes no sense at all. Layers show that there was a _series_ of
deposition events. Your disdain for science has betrayed you again.

>> > g. Catastrophic breakup up of land into continents.
>>
>> The land was not a solid mass in the beginning. The well known break-up
>> of the continents occurred after they had joined together, not because
>> it was one solid mass. As it was, you can see the individual continents
>> when they were joined as Pangaea. Actually there have been several
>> continental splits in the history of the earth.
>>
>It was solid. Are you saying the continents were apart and then
>together???!!! Oh, please.

They've been floating around bouncing into each other for a few billion
years. Your ignorance of this does not affect reality.

>> > Now, I know it's a little too much for you, but even you can read
>> > about it in A Pocket Guide to The Global Flood.
>>
>> > wg
>>
>> As shown above you can stick that little pocket guide up your ass
>> because that is all it is worth!
>
>You can't even begin to understand your mis-guided geological concepts
>until you read it. It explains how you've been duped.

Why would I believe a bunch of liars who make their money telling lies
to ignorant believers like you when I can learn about actual geology
from geologists who care about facts, evidence and honesty?

You have been fooled. Don't get mad at us. Get mad at the conmen who are
misleading you.

[wgroom]

Maybe you can use the bigger than pocket size for......:)

wg

[wgroom]

Simply science in general hasn't considered the ramifications of a
global flood. Their loss.

wg

[wgroom]

On Apr 4, 8:09 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Yes, there is. You're forgetting local floods don't go high over
hills much less mountains, and they don't get transported all over the
earth. Also the strata layers can be quite shown to be global rather
than local.

wg

[curtjester1]

Answers, Special Issue, Noah's Flood, Vol 2, No. 2 April-July 2007

wg

[wgroom]

No, actually the science from the global flood has made sense of many
things, by use of science to make them even clearer. They just
assumed the right hypothesis it all, and the geologists that started
all this long time period stuff, just bit when it became popular sexy
science, without holding all aspects to examination, and forgetting
that a huge flood could be reponsible.

wg

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:43:57 -0700 (PDT), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>

You are lying. There is no "science from the global flood". That is just
some lies put together by people intent on misleading believers into
giving them more money so they can defraud the next batch of believers.
You have absolutely no supporting scientific evidence and huge amounts
of evidence that show that Noah's Flood never happened.

>They just assumed the right hypothesis it all, and the geologists that
>started all this long time period stuff, just bit when it became popular
>sexy science, without holding all aspects to examination, and forgetting
>that a huge flood could be reponsible.

You are wrong. A huge flood could not have been responsible for what has
been observed. Your ignorance of science has allowed con men to mislead
you and get you to repeat their lies.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Answers in Genesis refuses to accept all scientific evidence that shows
that their doctrines are mistaken. They are liars. Ken Ham moved to the
United States because there was a larger group of credulous believers
for him to make money from when he sold them his lies.

There is no science in that issue. If you believe it is scientific, it
is because you are ignorant about science and brainwashed by fraudulent
preachers.