Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Noah's Ark: Was It Possible?
Atheists, agnostics, unbelievers and liberal scholars have all scoffed at the biblical account of Noah's ark and the Flood. But their criticisms rest on some mistaken assumptions.
by Arnold Mendez
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/noahsark.htm

This link refers to biblical kinds meaning all cats evolved from an original cat on the ark?

August wrote: IMO, there is no way that the ark would have floated using those assumptions and calculating the buoyancy, even if it was such a large vessel. The total weight is between 3 and 4 times more than the displaced water volume.

If all the parameters were well known, then a factor of 3 or 4 would be conclusive that the ark could not have floated. But given the uncertainty in all the estimates (length of cubit, number of animals, average weight, etc.), a factor of only 3 or 4 is not all that convincing by itself.
The buoyancy argument is a good one in the sense that not much specialized knowledge is needed to comprehend it. Other arguments, such as development of the present-day different types of animals from the ark animals, even the genetic bottleneck problems, or the geologic evidence concerning the flood, require more background scientific knowledge to evaluate.
Here is some information about large wooden ships. In the gopher wood mystery (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... +ark#22735), the proposition that cast iron (not steel) was involved in ark construction is presented. From Jbuza earlier "The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars" and the weblink "Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed".
Here, from the Wisconsin's Great Lakes Shipwrecks web site, is some information on big, mostly wooden ships:
http://www.wisconsinshipwrecks.org/expl ... r_serv.cfm
Between 1870 and 1903, well after most major shipyards had made the inevitable transition to steel hulls, Captain James Davidson's yard in West Bay City, Michigan, stretched the limits of wooden boat technology, eventually making some of largest wooden ships on the Great Lakes and some of the longest ever intended for deepwater navigation (see, for example, the Pretoria ).

Davidson's long preference for wooden hulls was due less to a reverence for tradition than to simple economics. Davidson's competitors faced huge capital outlays as they retooled their yards and retrained their workforces to build steel ships. Most, in fact, did not survive the transition. Davidson, however, spared himself the jolts of converting to steel. He exploited the supply of prime oak in the nearby Saginaw River area, stuck with his well-trained work force and well-equipped facilities, and pushed the art of wooden boat building to its limits. For many years, the strategy paid off. Davidson's inexpensive but efficient wooden boats continued earning him large profits until the Great Depression.

The Frank O'Connor represents one of Davidson's many technological advances. Originally called the City of Naples, it was built in 1892 with two sister ships, the City of Venice and the City of Genoa. These three ships were the first of Davidson's 300-foot wooden bulk carriers. To reach these lengths, Davidson devised innovative ways to strengthen the hulls with iron and steel strapping. The City of Naples measured 301 feet in length, 42 feet 6 inches in breadth, and 21 feet 3 inches in depth of hold. It had a gross tonnage of 2,109 and, as originally configured, could carry nearly 2,600 tons of coal or 100,000 bushels of grain.

http://www.wisconsinshipwrecks.org/expl ... a_serv.cfm
The schooner-barge Pretoria was one of the most colossal wooden vessels to sail the Great Lakes. It was 338 feet long - longer than a football field. It had a 44-foot beam and a depth of 23 feet. It reportedly had 11 hatches in its deck for loading cargo into the hold - each hatch was 7 feet by 26 feet. With a gross tonnage of 2,791 tons and a net tonnage of 2,715 tons, it could carry as much freight as 50 railroad cars.

The Pretoria was built at the turn of the century in West Bay City, Michigan, by James Davidson, a ship-building marvel in his day. Davidson was well-known for building high-quality wooden vessels that could carry heavy cargoes. He also was regarded as one of the final holdouts in the wooden shipbuilding industry.

The Saginaw (Michigan) Courier-Herald described the Pretoria's July 26, 1900, launching:

The schooner Pretoria, the largest wooden boat ever built, was launched at Davidson's shipyard this afternoon, in the presence of a vast multitude.

The Pretoria will carry 5,000 tons of iron ore, 175,000 bushels of wheat, or 300,000 bushels of oats. ... he is very strong and substantially constructed in every way, has steel keelson plates, steel chords , steel arches , and is also diagonally strapped with steel.

[This also adds to August's point - the earlier ark calculation was based on volume, but it is clear from the differing capacities for wheat and oats that weight is crucial.]

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Noah's Ark: Was It Possible?
Atheists, agnostics, unbelievers and liberal scholars have all scoffed at the biblical account of Noah's ark and the Flood. But their criticisms rest on some mistaken assumptions.
by Arnold Mendez
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/noahsark.htm

This link refers to biblical kinds meaning all cats evolved from an original cat on the ark?

Yup that's how they believe things took place. I'm not too sure about that though.

Why would the friction have to equal the force moving it? This doesn't seem to make much sense. If I pushed a rock with five pounds of force and their were five pounds of drag the object wouldn't move.

Newton's First Law. In order to slow the continents from a rapid movement to a slow movement, the same amount of energy must be exerted on them as accelerated them in the first place. And this energy must be released as heat.

Perhaps all of the energy would'nt have been released by friction yet, since the plates are still moving.

About 2 cm/yr. A tiny fraction of the velocity your theory requires. The rest would have been released as heat. And we know from maps, that there hasn't been a rapid movement in thousands of years.

All you have done is make a similar claim that says such and such about heat, but you haven't demonstrated how this is so, or by what mechanism they move. Can you more specifically show how you come to this conclusion that heat is a problem with rapid continental drift?

Thermodynamics. Useful energy, such as required to slow the movement of the galloping continents, must be lost in heat.

GPS instrumental determination of rates of movement do not make it seem like they have always been moving that speed.

The evidence shows that it is. For example, we see from paleomagnetism, radioisotope analysis, and many other ways, that this rate has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

The Barbarian
Newton's First Law. In order to slow the continents from a rapid movement to a slow movement, the same amount of energy must be exerted on them as accelerated them in the first place. And this energy must be released as heat.


OK how much force was exerted on the continents? Perhaps they have remained stationary with respect to the semi liquid area of the lithosphere. What mechanism caused them to break apart and move? There is also a time factor involved. It is clear that pangea broke apart and the continents have moved. The force that accelerated them could have been slowing throughout a far longer time than the acceleration. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to envision the moving continents creating waves in the liquid areas of the lithosphere, thus dissipating the energy throughout the earth.

You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don't know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to. Citing physical laws without applying them does nothing to elucidate the unknown operations and rates of continental drift.
-------------------
The Barbarian
About 2 cm/yr. A tiny fraction of the velocity your theory requires. The rest would have been released as heat. And we know from maps, that there hasn't been a rapid movement in thousands of years.


Really is this a claim or are you going to demonstrate from maps how we know this? Yes well if the entire heat were released in five minutes that would be a different problem than if it dissipated out over a period of 4000 years.
----------------
The Barbarian
Thermodynamics. Useful energy, such as required to slow the movement of the galloping continents, must be lost in heat.

Yes and how will you determine how much energy is required when you don't even know the mechanisms whereby the continents are floating about on liquids.
---------------
The Barbarian
The evidence shows that it is. For example, we see from paleomagnetism, radioisotope analysis, and many other ways, that this rate has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

No sorry that isn't true. Observed striations along magnetic lines, measurements of radioactive elements, and many other observations, have been used in support of claims about uniform processes since I can remember. Would you care to illustrate how these things are known, or do you just choose to let others interpretations stand for themselves? Empty claims. IT is quite difficult for processes to last hundreds of millions of years in a world that has only existed for thousands, so your interpretations don't work, sorry.
--------------

Jbuza wrote:The Barbarian
Newton's First Law. In order to slow the continents from a rapid movement to a slow movement, the same amount of energy must be exerted on them as accelerated them in the first place. And this energy must be released as heat.


OK how much force was exerted on the continents? Perhaps they have remained stationary with respect to the semi liquid area of the lithosphere. What mechanism caused them to break apart and move? There is also a time factor involved. It is clear that pangea broke apart and the continents have moved. The force that accelerated them could have been slowing throughout a far longer time than the acceleration. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to envision the moving continents creating waves in the liquid areas of the lithosphere, thus dissipating the energy throughout the earth.

You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don’t know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to. Citing physical laws without applying them does nothing to elucidate the unknown operations and rates of continental drift.
-------------------
The Barbarian
About 2 cm/yr. A tiny fraction of the velocity your theory requires. The rest would have been released as heat. And we know from maps, that there hasn't been a rapid movement in thousands of years.


Really is this a claim or are you going to demonstrate from maps how we know this? Yes well if the entire heat were released in five minutes that would be a different problem than if it dissipated out over a period of 4000 years.
----------------
The Barbarian
Thermodynamics. Useful energy, such as required to slow the movement of the galloping continents, must be lost in heat.

Yes and how will you determine how much energy is required when you don’t even know the mechanisms whereby the continents are floating about on liquids.
---------------
The Barbarian
The evidence shows that it is. For example, we see from paleomagnetism, radioisotope analysis, and many other ways, that this rate has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

No sorry that isn't true. Observed striations along magnetic lines, measurements of radioactive elements, and many other observations, have been used in support of claims about uniform processes since I can remember. Would you care to illustrate how these things are known, or do you just choose to let others interpretations stand for themselves? Empty claims. IT is quite difficult for processes to last hundreds of millions of years in a world that has only existed for thousands, so your interpretations don’t work, sorry.
--------------

Interesting approach, I never heard of anyone defending rapid continental movement, with a past that was physical only as the present is. I have wondered myself if the heat in the earth may have been caused by the sliding continents, and was not here in the past?

Jbuza wrote:You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don't know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to.

There is an old saying, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Why is it necessary for someone, claiming the continents to have drifted in the past at about the same rate as measured today, to produce detailed explanations and calculations whereas someone who claims the continents moved thousands of times faster feels no need to justify or explain such different rates ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don't know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to.

There is an old saying, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Why is it necessary for someone, claiming the continents to have drifted in the past at about the same rate as measured today, to produce detailed explanations and calculations whereas someone who claims the continents moved thousands of times faster feels no need to justify or explain such different rates ?

I was in the process of trying to demonstrate that when an objection was raised that heat was a big problem, so it does seem reasonable that that claim must be demonstrated clearly if it is an actual problem with the rapid drift I had been talking about. IF it is left as an empty claim than it isn't much of a problem for rapid drift.

sandy_mcd wrote:...
Why is it necessary for someone, claiming the continents to have drifted in the past at about the same rate as measured today, to produce detailed explanations and calculations whereas someone who claims the continents moved thousands of times faster feels no need to justify or explain such different rates ?

Most of the things we think we know of how it is deep below the earth is speculation anyhow.

Jbuza wrote:The Barbarian
Newton's First Law. In order to slow the continents from a rapid movement to a slow movement, the same amount of energy must be exerted on them as accelerated them in the first place. And this energy must be released as heat.

OK how much force was exerted on the continents? Perhaps they have remained stationary with respect to the semi liquid area of the lithosphere. What mechanism caused them to break apart and move? There is also a time factor involved. It is clear that pangea broke apart and the continents have moved. The force that accelerated them could have been slowing throughout a far longer time than the acceleration. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to envision the moving continents creating waves in the liquid areas of the lithosphere, thus dissipating the energy throughout the earth.

Shouldn't you work this out? It's your theory.

Jbuza wrote:You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don't know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to. Citing physical laws without applying them does nothing to elucidate the unknown operations and rates of continental drift.

I suggest you take some basic physics classes.

Jbuza wrote: -------------------
The Barbarian
About 2 cm/yr. A tiny fraction of the velocity your theory requires. The rest would have been released as heat. And we know from maps, that there hasn't been a rapid movement in thousands of years.

Really is this a claim or are you going to demonstrate from maps how we know this? Yes well if the entire heat were released in five minutes that would be a different problem than if it dissipated out over a period of 4000 years.

Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself.

Jbuza wrote: ----------------
The Barbarian
Thermodynamics. Useful energy, such as required to slow the movement of the galloping continents, must be lost in heat.

Yes and how will you determine how much energy is required when you don't even know the mechanisms whereby the continents are floating about on liquids.

Are you saying that the plates did not interact with each other? If I recreate it in a bucket with a layer of ice on top the blocks of ice seem to collide. Also there is friction between the ice blocks and the water below.

Jbuza wrote: ---------------
The Barbarian
The evidence shows that it is. For example, we see from paleomagnetism, radioisotope analysis, and many other ways, that this rate has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

No sorry that isn't true. Observed striations along magnetic lines, measurements of radioactive elements, and many other observations, have been used in support of claims about uniform processes since I can remember. Would you care to illustrate how these things are known, or do you just choose to let others interpretations stand for themselves?

One of the articles you posted as support for accelerated tectonic activity in the past, used precicely those items as evidence!!!

Jbuza wrote: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:The Barbarian
Newton's First Law. In order to slow the continents from a rapid movement to a slow movement, the same amount of energy must be exerted on them as accelerated them in the first place. And this energy must be released as heat.

OK how much force was exerted on the continents? Perhaps they have remained stationary with respect to the semi liquid area of the lithosphere. What mechanism caused them to break apart and move? There is also a time factor involved. It is clear that pangea broke apart and the continents have moved. The force that accelerated them could have been slowing throughout a far longer time than the acceleration. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to envision the moving continents creating waves in the liquid areas of the lithosphere, thus dissipating the energy throughout the earth.

Shouldn't you work this out? It's your theory.

Jbuza wrote:You need to demonstrate what mechanisms caused the earth to move, how much force that was and a host of other variables that you don't know before you can start making claims about how much heat we are talking about and where the forces radiated to. Citing physical laws without applying them does nothing to elucidate the unknown operations and rates of continental drift.

I suggest you take some basic physics classes.

Jbuza wrote: -------------------
The Barbarian
About 2 cm/yr. A tiny fraction of the velocity your theory requires. The rest would have been released as heat. And we know from maps, that there hasn't been a rapid movement in thousands of years.

Really is this a claim or are you going to demonstrate from maps how we know this? Yes well if the entire heat were released in five minutes that would be a different problem than if it dissipated out over a period of 4000 years.

Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself.

Jbuza wrote: ----------------
The Barbarian
Thermodynamics. Useful energy, such as required to slow the movement of the galloping continents, must be lost in heat.

Yes and how will you determine how much energy is required when you don't even know the mechanisms whereby the continents are floating about on liquids.

Are you saying that the plates did not interact with each other? If I recreate it in a bucket with a layer of ice on top the blocks of ice seem to collide. Also there is friction between the ice blocks and the water below.

Jbuza wrote: ---------------
The Barbarian
The evidence shows that it is. For example, we see from paleomagnetism, radioisotope analysis, and many other ways, that this rate has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

No sorry that isn't true. Observed striations along magnetic lines, measurements of radioactive elements, and many other observations, have been used in support of claims about uniform processes since I can remember. Would you care to illustrate how these things are known, or do you just choose to let others interpretations stand for themselves?

One of the articles you posted as support for accelerated tectonic activity in the past, used precicely those items as evidence!!!

Jbuza wrote: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

Yes I know and others have used the exact some evidence with different interpretations to "prove" those interpretations as well.

If I knew all the factors I would just prove it mathmatically for you.

The reason that most of these theories are empty claims is because we don't know how these thigns work.

Rapid drift fits the observations as well as slow drift. Especially since slow drift takes longer then the entire age of the earth.

Shall I make a theory full of empty claims, to sit along side the existing ones with their empty claims?

Prove yours. Test it. Demonstrate how it is true. All that can be collected is evidence against a theory, and empty claims about heat emitted in unknown ways in unknown preocesses, in hidden ages simply doesn't iscredit anything unless it can be actually demonstrated.

But thanks for all the kind help, because when you said

"Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself." was yet another empty claim that it was so.

Jbuza wrote: "Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself." was yet another empty claim that it was so.

Alright do a quick experiment.
Take two cups, fill them with water, and put in two cubes of ice.
Leave one cup alone and another agitate it with a spoon.

Which one melts first?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: "Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself." was yet another empty claim that it was so.

Alright do a quick experiment.
Take two cups, fill them with water, and put in two cubes of ice.
Leave one cup alone and another agitate it with a spoon.

Which one melts first?

IS someone arguing that frictional forces don't exist or something?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: "Frictional forces as he said would cook the ocean, do the calculations yourself." was yet another empty claim that it was so.

Alright do a quick experiment.
Take two cups, fill them with water, and put in two cubes of ice.
Leave one cup alone and another agitate it with a spoon.

Which one melts first?

IS someone arguing that frictional forces don't exist or something?

Great we agree.
Lets get the following values.

How much do you think the continental crust weighs?

What is the cooefficient of friction (static and kinetic) between Crust and Magma.

What is the static friction which would need to be countered in order to put the crust into motion.

How much energy would this generate?

Now that we have the applied force we can calculate kinetic friction.

What is the energy generated by this motion?

What is the volume of water in the atlantic ocean at this time?

We can assume a less than 10km wide crack in the earth.

hmmm perhaps you can see that this would require some rather empty claims.