Jump to content


Photo

Now I Understand Where The Water Came From


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 03:45 AM

 

 

Wibble: Regarding dinosaurs, you have asserted "dozens of complete or nearly complete" specimens, which of those in your link are complete ?

 

 

 

Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argumentby leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

 

 

 

Wibble: Regarding dinosaurs, you have asserted "dozens of complete or nearly complete" specimens, which of those in your link are complete ?

 

Pterosaurs

 

https://www.google.c...griVbWn6at8V8M:

 

https://www.google.c...mj3gtE-pqC2cDM:

 

 

 

Wibble: complete

 

 

Actual claim;

 

 

 

mike the wiz: we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 

(Obviously the implication is of things killed by burial/fossilisation, which doesn't rule out obliteration of all or portions of the organism.)

 

 

 

wibbleWith your argument, with rapid burial whilst alive, pretty much all skeletons should be complete, rather than very rare specimens that are almost complete like that specimen.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Straw_man

http://www.toolkitfo...sertion-fallacy

 

"almost complete" is closer to complete than not complete, especially if we are bickering over 3%. The pictures speak for themselves, we can tell what ALL of their anatomy is, must I actually show pictures of the dinosaurs and use up all of my picture file space just so everyone can see the skeletons? You're arguing "technically not complete" because one may be 96% or another may be 98%. If you are saying, "it must be 100%, and can't be 99.4%" then I can only laugh at you. The examples come in their whole form, you can plainly see they're basically complete however I never made any claim they must be complete. (double whammy) :)

 

(Readers should note that I am not claiming fossils of organisms should be complete in the sense of 100% identical to a living organism to the percentage which is a ludicrous request showing ignorance of fossilisation. I myself never claimed anything to do with completeness, but when I gave a list of, "complete" fossils, what I mean is the whole of the organism is there encased, where we can either see the entire skeleton or imprint, my original claim was, "exquisite condition", if you look at the links I gave for pterosaurs, spiders, frogs, beetles dragon flies, etc, because of their exquisite condition even children would immediately recognise what they are. If there is an assertion that most fossils are decayed, showing they had already died and were slowly fossilised over long periods then the person making such an assertion has to show that most are preserved as a decaying mass, or preserved partially but indeterminate because of the decay.)

 

To falsify such obviously exquisite preservation in the fossils, there would have to be none found eating, fighting, digesting, in the suffocation position, exquisitely preserved. That would falsify a flood if there was generally no such examples. From the abundance of evidence shown there are very many examples. If a flood had not occurred there would be little to none. If a flood had occurred to expect all to be preserved identically is a stupid argument but we would expect many examples which we do. If a flood had not preserved fossils while alive, none of them and they all looked like they had already died, that would falsify a flood or be such strong evidence against it because it would confirm fossils of decayed dead things were preserved rather than victims of a flood.

 

 

 

The fossil catches the moments just after a long-tailed pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, had swooped down and caught a small fish in the water, thought to be Leptolepides, when a larger predatory fish, Aspidorhynchus, managed to leap up and impale itself on the flight membrane of the pterosaur’s wing, pulling it back down to the water................Significantly this means that the pterosaur had not just recently died and was not floating in the water waiting for a scavenger to consume it. The pterosaur had just swooped down to catch the smaller fish and was part-way through swallowing it, when the Aspidorhynchus caught the Rhamphorhynchus and pulled it down into the water were it was drowned........So what does this mean for the 0.5 million years that the Solnhofen limestone deposit supposedly took to form? If the fossils contained within it require extremely rapid sedimentation, how can the length of time ascribed to it still remain?

 

The last part shows the logic - even if these three fossils alone were the only fossils ever found in those layers, it only takes this one example because they had to have been buried instantly, not over millions of years, because they died in their actions. So all it really takes is to find one fossil in a layer which is claimed to have formed over many millions of years, which clearly had to have formed quickly.



#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 04:45 AM

 

 

mike the wiz: we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 

In regards to this statement just to clarify basic logic for those readers who struggle to understand, if a fossil is 94% preserved or 100% complete, both examples can still be exquisitely preserved, or even 78%. So "completeness" of the fossil is a red-herring

 

The modus tollens is if we do "NOT find them in exquisite condition, fighting, giving birth, eating, etc..." the modus tollens is not, "we don't find all of them doing this therefore a flood is false." That would be a non-sequitur. So it seems people making that suggestion, still don't know the A,B,C level of logic that deals with understanding what a conditional implication is. 

 

By analogy imagine if I claimed, "this race driver is exquisite, his car handling skill superb!", would that argument be affected if someone said; "but you must show he is 100% perfect, and has never had an accident."

 

That would be a desperate counter-argument.

 

The semantics over what we regard as, "complete", as a kind of technical completeness where we discuss percentage, is just that; semantics, it won't change the fact we have found fossils in the act of attacking each other, and we can even deduce what had happened, like when the pterosaur swooped down to catch a fish and another large fish impaled itself. This was altogether captured forever in time as a fossil, we also have other examples showing us what we need to see in order to satisfy my claim that the organisms were living when they were fossilised, as would happen in a flood. We have fossil fights, fossil births, fossils eating, fossils with their necks thrown back, fossils which are preserved in "fluid" positions, like they were swimming or moving when they were fossilised. We would expect fossils of things preserved while living, and we find them. Had we not found any, that would falsify a flood because the claim of the bible is that all life was killed, and so that life would show it had been fossilised by the flood while living, not after death.

 

It's pretty basic logic. The claim such evidence doesn't favour a flood and instead favours millions of years, is a claim depending on contradiction.



#23 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:14 AM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]But really it's only evolutionists that insist that the matter be completely scientific.

If it's going to try to be (or more to the point appear) scientific at all, it needs to go all the way, yes. It fundamentally doesn't work otherwise.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]So you might think a flood can't be falsified. Not really though, all historical models have contradictory evidence and if we assume one model is true then such evidence can't falsify the true one. With that in mind, the correct way to falsify a flood can only be the correct employment of the modus tollens where there is an absolutely watertight conditional implication.[/font

You've said this multiple times, but I don't think it's actually true. If your model has been contradicted, your model is wrong. That's a different thing than saying that the model is inaccurate to some extent. The purpose of a model is to simplify the thing being modeled, with the acknowledgement that doing so introduces some amount of inaccuracy. A model of the solar system that's modeled as a handful of point masses is much easier to understand and extrapolate from than the actual solar system, but it's also less accurate. "This model deviates by X%." is a very different statement than "Maybe God knows how to get around thermodynamics?".

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]CONCLUSION; You can't falsify a flood unless you have a really strong prediction where there is a conspicuous absence of unavoidably expected evidence. However you can provide evidence against a flood.

My point is that when miracles are in play there is no unavoidably expected evidence. Evidence and expectation rely on consistent natural processes to work. A miracle is pretty much by definition a suspension of the normal operation of those processes.

If you can say that hydroplates happened but Earth wasn't sterilized like we would expect because miracles, why can't you say that a flood happened but we didn't find fossils exactly like we expected because miracles?

#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:57 AM

 

 

PopoiIf your model has been contradicted, your model is wrong

 

Perhaps then I should have used the term, "inconsistent" evidence. Obviously if X is true there can't really be a true contradiction of X, which was my point, there are lots of types of evidence evolutionists claim can't fit with a flood but they're not omniscient and they technically don't know if it can be explained. I myself don't see any silver-bullet contradiction of a flood. 

 

 

 

Popoi: "This model deviates by X%." is a very different statement than "Maybe God knows how to get around thermodynamics?".

 

Logically to be a consistent Christian I MUST claim God knows how to solve problems and since I never argued in my life the flood was anything less than a miracle caused by God........ The point isn't scientific. You yourself, as soon as you give any opinions about what God can or can't do, have left the realm of science, haven't you? But I myself am not claiming the flood is solely scientific. If you personally only find meaning from something solely scientific, that is your point of view not mine but from a logical perspective it seems absurd to treat the flood as solely-scientific to the point of saying that we must find Noah's dna.

 

But I am not saying that a miracle was definitely needed, I myself would consider three logical possibilities;

 

1. God knows a way to disperse heat. (Lol, talk about stating the obvious.)

2. Miracle.

3. A flood did not happen. 

 

I believe by faith 1 or 2 because a flood still makes sense of so much of the evidence where evolution fails, such as the general fixity of kinds and total lack of transitionals, etc...

 

 

 

Popoi: If it's going to try to be (or more to the point appear) scientific at all, it needs to go all the way, yes. It fundamentally doesn't work otherwise.

 

Yes but if the full truth is not solely scientific, then this argument means little. You need to read Hawkins' post here, it is excellent in describing that historical theories themselves are not even scientific "all the way"; http://evolutionfair...scent/?p=140915

 

You see you are trying to argue that only science counts but I don't accept your argument. First you must prove that only "science" is valid. That simply isn't the case, an argument can consist of scientific facts in it's parts without being wholly scientific, you can form a sound syllogism and the argument itself is not a scientific argument, but uses scientific facts.

 

 



#25 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 17 November 2017 - 10:36 AM

But I myself am not claiming the flood is solely scientific. If you personally only find meaning from something solely scientific, that is your point of view not mine but from a logical perspective it seems absurd to treat the flood as solely-scientific to the point of saying that we must find Noah's dna.
 
But I am not saying that a miracle was definitely needed, ...


But there's a problem in claiming God used a miracle. Whatever God does, He does to draw people to Himself. But as soon as you suggest it might be a miracle, many people start rolling their eyes and losing interest. This isn't totally sinful. It's just all too easy to be wrong unless the Scriptures explicitly says what happened and it's clearly a miracle. Raising someone from the dead is clearly a miracle. But there aren't enough details given about the flood to be sure.

On a related issue, I used to be convinced that surely the Lord used evolution to produce a man into which He injected the first soul, Adam. In that theory, man evolved but Adam was the first human because he was the first animal with a soul. I still think the theory fits well with Scripture. The death in God's warning about eating the fruit was a spiritual death, not physical.

But I've now totally abandoned this theory because of science. I started reading about gene expression, how RNA polymerase temporarily splits open the DNA helix to transcribe a messenger RNA chain which is then processed, exits the nucleus and is captured by a ribosome which translates each three-nucleotide codone to one amino acid (which is brought to it by a transfer RNA) and thus builds the encoded protein. But that's not all. There is a very complex hierarchy within each cell. And there are levels of hierarchy of cells forming subsystems, systems and organs.

And supposedly nature violated thermodynamics to bring extreme order out of disorder to produce the sensationally well organized and functional bodies we enjoy everyday, all by chance with no fossils that captured transitions.

Since I've rejected the pseudoscience (or is it a religion?) of evolution, I'm left with no option but to believe that God supernaturally "poofed" life into existence. Atheists don't have that option, so they're stuck trying to defend a thoroughly debunked 19th century theory.

But we're not there yet on the flood. Sure, piasan quotes sources that say Noah would be cooked. But I wonder how many more nuggets of truth like ringwoodite are waiting to be unearthed that will explain it satisfactorily using only the Lords own laws of physics.

#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 10:49 AM

 

 

Ken Jackson:  Sure, piasan quotes sources that say Noah would be cooked. But I wonder how many more nuggets of truth like ringwoodite are waiting to be unearthed that will explain it satisfactorily using only the Lords own laws of physics.

 

I'm not against this possibility, Ken. As a student of logic I don't rule out explanations. 

 

That's one reason I don't like argumentum ad ignorantiam; "we can't find a way this flood could have solved the problem, therefore it can't have happened." So I agree that arguing from ignorance is unacceptable, in fact I mentioned that in my original post to Piasan.

 

 

 

Ken: But there's a problem in claiming God used a miracle.

 

My position on the flood itself is that it was a miracle in the sense of it being defined as an act of God, it wasn't a natural disaster that randomly occurred. From my perspective it had to be a highly orchestrated event because if it was just a natural flood, chances are it would be curtains for all life on earth including Noah and the ark. Basically my own beliefs though they may sometimes stray from the normal, is that God intended to wipe out the dinosaurs because they would become a pest that would wipe out mankind and the mammals. I also believe God created certain geomorphology because He intended to bring about countries where man would spread out on the earth, so whether it be grand canyon or Ayers rock or the white cliffs of Dover, I believe these features likely had some artistic intention to them, to give countries their own signature.

 

However this doesn't preclude a scientific explanation for some effects such as heat. So I am open to the possibility that God simply solved such problems scientifically or that they were not actually problems to begin with because of unknown factors. After all this really isn't hard, repeatable science, all we can do is build models to fit circumstantial evidence. From my own perspective, for me personally I can accept a flood happened because I see no alternative history anyway, evolution is basically a logical joke to me, to my mind God done it, the details are just not totally known.

 

So it's not that I am claiming God used a miracle really, it's just one possible explanation for Christians because as you say; ", I'm left with no option but to believe that God supernaturally". Exactly, just like we have to believe God turned the water into wine. Atheists may say, "unacceptable" but I don't have to value what they say. I also don't really care what they say, or if they roll their eyes because I believe their whole worldview is an absurd shambles.



#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:40 PM

 

mike the wiz we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 
In regards to this statement just to clarify basic logic for those readers who struggle to understand, if a fossil is 94% preserved or 100% complete, both examples can still be exquisitely preserved, or even 78%. So "completeness" of the fossil is a red-herring
 
The modus tollens is if we do "NOT find them in exquisite condition, fighting, giving birth, eating, etc..." the modus tollens is not, "we don't find all of them doing this therefore a flood is false." That would be a non-sequitur. So it seems people making that suggestion, still don't know the A,B,C level of logic that deals with understanding what a conditional implication is. [/font]

 


I never made that claim about behaviours being preserved ("So it seems people making that suggestion" is obviously referring to me), why make up things ?

I asked you how many of the dino fossils in your google link were complete because you labelled it "complete or nearly complete dinosaurs". Excuse me for being pedantic but I would have thought that "nearly complete" would include all the specimens that weren't actually complete....which suggested that you were asserting that there are 100% complete specimens, as in ones with no missing bones.

In post #11, you said this:
 

we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed because of being preserved..... So had we found no fossils like that, and they were generally in a semi-rotten state by majority that would be a falsification.


I see you ignored my point about selection bias when you do a google search for fossils. Does it not concern you that you are getting a skewed picture of the general completeness of fossils by being a casual armchair google image searcher ?

But anyway, back to your above quote, the flesh has gone from all fossils obviously, so by "semi rotten" you must mean an incomplete skeleton, right ? Your argument seems to be that due to sudden burial alive, animals killed weren't left in the open to be dismembered by scavengers, or rot away for the bones to be separated by water flow or whatever.

So we can substitute "semi rotten" with "partial skeleton" and if that was the state by majority then by your own words that would be a falsification of your flood.

If we look up the list of T. Rex fossils we find that none are complete (in common with all other dinos as I said). The famous specimen "Sue" is the best preserved with about 80% of bones present. However, almost all are much less intact than this, if you look at the info for the specimen "Bucky" it states that it is the sixth most complete (out of more than 40) specimen ever found and this only has 34% of its bones.

I'd wager that you could look up any dinosaur or indeed any other animal and get a similar picture (or worse).

So if you are to be honest with yourself, this does not fit with your flood suddenly burying most things alive but does fit with normal processes of dead animals being exposed for a period of time with later chance burial.



#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:30 PM

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:

They measured the spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.

The frequencies of certain transitions in glycine, which are known from experiments in the lab, provide a characteristic signature for the molecule. Knowing this spectral "fingerprint", the researchers were able to identify 27 glycine lines at frequencies between 90 and 265 GHz in the clouds. This confirms the results of earlier searches for interstellar glycine in which tantalizing evidence was provided by a handful of spectral lines.

My apologies for leaving out the link to the article.



#29 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:45 PM

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:


From the article:

The chemical process that actually produces glycine in the interstellar medium is not understood, ...


Not understood. Yeah, well I can't understand the concept of a big glob of glycine floating around in outer space. And there must be a lot of it if they detected 27 lines amidst the noise.
 

The researchers claim that the discovery of glycine is the first step in establishing the crucial link between amino acids in space and the emergence of life in the solar system or, indeed, elsewhere in the galaxy.


Wishful thinking. Even if there is an incomprehensible large glob of glycine adrift in the cosmos, each molecule has only ten atoms. And it's only one of the twenty amino acids needed for life. And you still have to assemble thousands of proteins with hundreds of precisely ordered amino acids. That's an AWFUL lot of order to happen upon by chance.

#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 November 2017 - 02:09 AM

 

It looks like all you're doing is speculating. Do you have a reference that the release of hydroxide ions would be endothermic? It's a reasonable question since the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic. Further, the formation of water is highly exothermic.

I'm not so sure it would matter anyway. Temperatures at the depths you're talking about run in the order of 2000C (3600F). On his "Rocket Science" page, Brown uses a temperature of 1350C (about 2500F). Any water would quickly cook out of the rock.

If we start with four OH- ions, we have to break two O-H bonds and form two new O-H bonds to get two water molecules, which I believe is energy neutral. But when we combine the remaining oxygen atoms into O2, we release some energy.

But that's not all there was. The ringwoodite is "able to contain hydroxide ions", but what does that mean? Things tend to go to the lowest energy state, so I assume the crystal holding hydroxide is in a lower energy state than having the two separate, so separating them should take energy. Yes, I'm speculating that it's endothermic and maybe that the whole process is endothermic. When I get to it, I'll track down more information, but I posted in hopes that I might interest someone with more chemistry knowledge than me.

I did look into it, but couldn't find anything about the energy transfers.

 

It is worth note that an endothermic process would be absorbing energy, not releasing it.  Again, the formation of water is HIGHLY exothermic.  Also, few chemical reactions are endothermic.

 

It seems it falls to you to show:

1)  The formation of water from the hydroxides would be endothermic, as you claim.

2)  The energy absorbed by the decomposition of the ringwoodite is greater than the energy released by the formation of water.... meaning a net loss of energy in the overall process.

 

Then there is still that initial temperature in the thousands of degrees ......

 

Also when steam condenses to liquid water, there is again a HUGE energy release.  This release is so great the condensation of enough water vapor to cover the earth (as rainfall) to a depth of only one meter would increase the temperature of the atmosphere by some 240C.

 


 

God is fully capable of making the water for the flood appear and disappear by any process He chooses.  All He needs to do is suspend the natural laws and exercise His will.  He could place the Ark under His protection so it won't be ripped apart by hull flexure.
 
God's supernatural ability is not the issue.


I agree with you. God could use His supernatural power to suspend His laws of physics and chemistry, but that explanation tastes bad. Why did God create SO MANY things in nature that insightful scientists and investigators can use to figure things our? Why has He given us all unique fingerprints? A very skillful cabinetmaker isn't annoyed when you put his dado joints under a microscope. He's thrilled when someone notices his fine work. I think God is pleased when we put His Word and His creation under the microscope to figure out how He flooded the earth. That's why I found this ringwoodite discovery so exciting.

Frankly, I don't dispute that there is ample water on the planet to cause a global flood.  The problem is that the vast majority of that water is incorporated into the structure of rock.  For example, Copper sulfate crystals are a penthydrate.  (each CuSO4 molecule has 5 water molecules attached).  If you remove the water, the crystal falls apart and you end up with a gray powder instead if a nice solid blue crystal.

 

One endothermic demonstration I do in my chem classes is to mix two powders.  Barium hydroxide (octhydrate) with a salt of ammonia.  In the reaction, the water is released from the barium hydroxide and the temperature drops dramatically.  The end result is a liquid slury with a temperature in the neighborhood of -10C.

 

There are two sources of knowledge: observed and revealed. If our understanding of the physical world and our understanding of God's Word seem to be at odds, that is proof that we don't understand one or the other.

I absolutely agree.

 

"Truth cannot contradict truth."  It is the observed knowledge from God's creation is that it is billions of years old, not thousands.  The revealed Bible is subject to much more handling by fallible humans than is the observational evidence of His creation.  It was astronomy, not evolution that led me to conclude Genesis should not be read literally.

 

 

In physics, there are three ways to disperse heat. Conduction, convection, and radiation. If you have another way, I'm listening.

In physics, we can also transfer heat to kinetic and potential energy, such as blasting rocks and atmosphere into space.

Brown does propose using the launch of all the comets, meteors, and asteroids to space from Earth as a way to get rid of much of the energy.  There was an extensive discussion of this process in the "Fire and Brimstone" topic.  Basically, if less than 10% of the material fails to escape Earth's gravity and returns to Earth, the energy comes back with it.  More than enough to heat the atmosphere above the boiling point of water.

 

When I contacted Danny Faulkner about this, his comment was that I had looked into the material returning and he had looked at the material leaving.  Each of us came up with enough heat to sterilize the planet.  And we aren't the only ones.  Multiple other physicists have also found the same heat problem with Brown's Hydroplate model.

 

For more than a decade, I've been trying to find a favorable scientific review of Brown's proposal.  One that says it works and won't destroy life on the planet.  To date, I've drawn nothing but blanks.

 


In chemistry, we can also use up heat in an endothermic chemical reaction

You would need to show:

1)  That the reaction you propose is, in fact, endothermic.  So far all you've done is assert the possibility it "could" be.  Since endothermic reactions are the exception, not the rule, the burden for that one is on you.

2)  That the energy absorbed will be greater than the energy released by the cooling of steam, the condensation of it, and the cooling of the resulting water to survivable temperatures.  That's a LOT of energy.

 

 


In multiple disciplines, we can reduce temperature according to Boyle's law by reducing air pressure, which would happen when some of the atmosphere was blasted into space.

Boyle's law isn't going to be a lot of help either.  You start with a temperature conservatively at 1600K and you need to get it down to around 300K.  That would mean you'd need to send over 80% of the atmosphere to space.



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 November 2017 - 02:22 AM

 

 

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:

 


From the article:

The chemical process that actually produces glycine in the interstellar medium is not understood, ...


Not understood. Yeah, well I can't understand the concept of a big glob of glycine floating around in outer space. And there must be a lot of it if they detected 27 lines amidst the noise.

The challenge was whether or not amino acids had been found in interstellar space.  The article confirms that.

 

Regardless of how they formed, that discovery plus one mentioned by Faulkner demonstrate that Brown's claims regarding organics in the solar system are bogus.

 

From the article:

The researchers claim that the discovery of glycine is the first step in establishing the crucial link between amino acids in space and the emergence of life in the solar system or, indeed, elsewhere in the galaxy.

Wishful thinking. Even if there is an incomprehensible large glob of glycine adrift in the cosmos, each molecule has only ten atoms. And it's only one of the twenty amino acids needed for life. And you still have to assemble thousands of proteins with hundreds of precisely ordered amino acids. That's an AWFUL lot of order to happen upon by chance.

Irrelevant.

 

My remarks were limited to the fact that organic molecules have been discovered in interstellar space.

 

Notice, I also didn't cite the article's comment that these molecules were tens of thousands of light years from Earth .... a distance far beyond what we should be able to see in a 6,000 year old universe.  That wasn't relevant to Brown's claims either ......



#32 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:28 AM

It is worth note that an endothermic process would be absorbing energy, not releasing it. Again, the formation of water is HIGHLY exothermic. Also, few chemical reactions are endothermic.

It seems it falls to you to show:
1) The formation of water from the hydroxides would be endothermic, as you claim.
2) The energy absorbed by the decomposition of the ringwoodite is greater than the energy released by the formation of water.... meaning a net loss of energy in the overall process.


The "formation of water" usually means combining hydrogen and water. But that's not what happened. Let's look at this again:
 

If we start with four OH- ions, we have to break two O-H bonds and form two new O-H bonds to get two water molecules, which I believe is energy neutral. But when we combine the remaining oxygen atoms into O2, we release some energy.


Yeah, that part is exothermic so far, but if it takes more energy to release the four OH- ions from the crystal than is released by combining the two oxygens into one O2, then it's overall endothermic. I'm the only one being very specific here, though I'm lacking one very key piece of information, so I can only speculate. But it seems likely to me that it's overall endothermic.

Why would the ringwoodite hold the ions if there was no energy released in absorbing them? That is, if hydroxide bearing crystals are in a higher energy state than anhydrous crystal, then why would they naturally exist in the high energy state? Don't you normally have to supply the binding energy to relase ions? And the binding energy need only be one fourth of O-O binding energy to break even.
 

If you remove the water, the crystal falls apart and you end up with a gray powder instead if a nice solid blue crystal.


Hmm. This could partially explain where the water went. After it all left the crystal, the crystal was unstable so it probably settled and compressed over the next year, lowering the water level.
 

Multiple other physicists have also found the same heat problem with Brown's Hydroplate model.


I haven't even read all of Brown's theory. I just know he proposed there was water in huge caverns deep underground, which I and others found to be preposterous. The ringwoodite solves the problem of the water's existence, since scientists with no interest in the flood believe there's even now a lot more down there.

I'm not interested in getting any one theory proved, I just want to know what happened.
 

Boyle's law isn't going to be a lot of help either. You start with a temperature conservatively at 1600K and you need to get it down to around 300K. That would mean you'd need to send over 80% of the atmosphere to space.


The large size of dragonfly fossils and the small size of some huge dinosaurs' nostrils tells us the air pressure was higher before the flood. So a bunch of air went somewhere. I don't know how much.

There's another factor. Some people believe the last ice age (or maybe the only ice age) was actually the flood. And there's a reason to think it.

A number of frozen woolly mammoths have been found that were actually flash frozen, upright, with food in their bellies. They were so well preserved that some people cooked and ate them. It would take a BIG temperature drop to flash freeze a woolly mammoth. What could cause that? Blowing off some atmosphere comes to mind.

Though of course, that takes us in the wrong direction. We're trying to figure out how Noah and his animals survived the boiling oceans, but we
have envidence of big flash freeze. Darn it.

#33 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 22 November 2017 - 12:55 PM

The challenge was whether or not amino acids had been found in interstellar space. The article confirms that.

Regardless of how they formed, that discovery plus one mentioned by Faulkner demonstrate that Brown's claims regarding organics in the solar system are bogus.


I'm not sure what Brown claimed. But if anyone is claiming that the presence of glycine suggests life, I think they're wrong. There's just TOO MUCH that has to happen between one ten-atom molecule and life. Also, straight lines on Mars were taken as proof of intelligent civilizations not so long ago. Also, did they find glycine just one place? Have other astronomers reproduced the results?
 

My remarks were limited to the fact that organic molecules have been discovered in interstellar space.

Notice, I also didn't cite the article's comment that these molecules were tens of thousands of light years from Earth .... a distance far beyond what we should be able to see in a 6,000 year old universe. That wasn't relevant to Brown's claims either ......


You seem to be preoccupied with Brown. I'm not.

As for the comment that you didn't comment on, I accept that the apparent distance to distant stars is proof of an old universe. If God created a universe that has evidence of being old, but is actually young, it would appear that God lied. And the "day" on the first page of the Bible could easily be a metaphor. God uses lots and lots of metaphors to communicate truth in Scripture.

However, it's not clear to me why the earth needs to be either young or old. And there seems to be evidence of each, so I'm not sure which is true.

#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:10 PM

 

The challenge was whether or not amino acids had been found in interstellar space. The article confirms that.

Regardless of how they formed, that discovery plus one mentioned by Faulkner demonstrate that Brown's claims regarding organics in the solar system are bogus.

I'm not sure what Brown claimed. But if anyone is claiming that the presence of glycine suggests life, I think they're wrong. There's just TOO MUCH that has to happen between one ten-atom molecule and life. Also, straight lines on Mars were taken as proof of intelligent civilizations not so long ago. Also, did they find glycine just one place? Have other astronomers reproduced the results?

The specific claim by Brown I'm talking about is that organic molecules in the solar system originated from Earth and were sent to space in his steam explosion. 

 

As for the lines on Mars, they were due to the low resolution of Martian images thru the 1950's.  Space flight changed all that.

 

The paper I referenced mentioned their findings were the confirmation of previous studies.  I didn't pursue it any farther since the whole point was to show that organics didn't necessarily originate from Earth.

 

 


 

My remarks were limited to the fact that organic molecules have been discovered in interstellar space.

Notice, I also didn't cite the article's comment that these molecules were tens of thousands of light years from Earth .... a distance far beyond what we should be able to see in a 6,000 year old universe. That wasn't relevant to Brown's claims either ......

You seem to be preoccupied with Brown. I'm not.

 Well, you did mention Brown's Hydroplates in the OP and again in post #3.  Like Brown, you propose the water is originating from a region where it will be supercritical.  Like Brown, you propose the mid-Atlantic ridge as the remains of the "fountains."

 

The similarities are pretty obvious.  It seems, from the OP, that your issue with Brown was his caverns as a source of water.  You propose this ringwoodite instead.  From my perspective, it makes little difference since the heat problem is almost identical.

 

 

As for the comment that you didn't comment on, I accept that the apparent distance to distant stars is proof of an old universe. If God created a universe that has evidence of being old, but is actually young, it would appear that God lied. And the "day" on the first page of the Bible could easily be a metaphor. God uses lots and lots of metaphors to communicate truth in Scripture.

We are in total agreement on this.  It was astronomy and physics, not evolution that led me to reject a literal Genesis.

 

 


However, it's not clear to me why the earth needs to be either young or old. And there seems to be evidence of each, so I'm not sure which is true.

To me, the overwhelming evidence is the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands.



#35 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 November 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

It is worth note that an endothermic process would be absorbing energy, not releasing it. Again, the formation of water is HIGHLY exothermic. Also, few chemical reactions are endothermic.

It seems it falls to you to show:
1) The formation of water from the hydroxides would be endothermic, as you claim.
2) The energy absorbed by the decomposition of the ringwoodite is greater than the energy released by the formation of water.... meaning a net loss of energy in the overall process.


The "formation of water" usually means combining hydrogen and water. But that's not what happened. Let's look at this again:
 

If we start with four OH- ions, we have to break two O-H bonds and form two new O-H bonds to get two water molecules, which I believe is energy neutral. But when we combine the remaining oxygen atoms into O2, we release some energy.

Yeah, that part is exothermic so far, but if it takes more energy to release the four OH- ions from the crystal than is released by combining the two oxygens into one O2, then it's overall endothermic. I'm the only one being very specific here, though I'm lacking one very key piece of information, so I can only speculate. But it seems likely to me that it's overall endothermic.

Why would the ringwoodite hold the ions if there was no energy released in absorbing them? That is, if hydroxide bearing crystals are in a higher energy state than anhydrous crystal, then why would they naturally exist in the high energy state? Don't you normally have to supply the binding energy to relase ions? And the binding energy need only be one fourth of O-O binding energy to break even.

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic, not endothermic.  The reason for this should be fairly obvious once one realizes atoms will tend to rearrange themselves to a state of lower potential energy.  The excess potential energy will almost always express itself as heat.

 

Now, let's be more specific.

 

With regard to stripping "hydroxide bearing crystals."  I don't have data for ringwoodite, but my chem students do a lab in which they dissolve sodium hydroxide (NaOH) pellets in water.  This creates Na+ and OH- ions.... and a lot of heat.  (The purpose of the lab is to measure the heat released by the disassociation of the Na and OH ions.)

 

Now, we have separated the OH- ions from the crystal.  Let's add the H+ ions to make water.  This is a straightforward neutralization reaction.  Take the NaOH solu tion with its OH- ions and add H+ ions in the form of a strong acid such as sulfuric.  You end up with water and a salt and .... you guessed it .... a lot of heat.

 

But that isn't the real heat problem......

 

You commented this mineral is 400 miles down.  As I pointed out, temperatures at that depth are around 2000C.  Any water you would get at that depth and temperature would be supercritical.  Water is supercritical above roughly 375C and 220 atmospheres pressure.  This supercritical water needs to cool to "normal" temperatures.

 

 

Being specific, of course .....

Supercritical water has a lot more energy than "ordinary" steam.  For the sake of simplicity, we'll seriously understate the problem and treat the SCW as normal steam. The specific heat of steam is about 2kJ/kg.  Cooling the steam to boiling temperature (100C) would amount to 3800kJ/kg of steam.  Then the steam needs to condense to water with the release of 2260kJ/kg.  We're now around 6000kJ/kg of water.  Cooling the water to a tepid 25C at 4.2kJ/kg would only be another 300kJ/kg.  Total energy to get the steam from 2000C to water at 25C (77F) is about 6300kJ/kg.

 

You have a LOT of energy to get rid of ......






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users