This is more of an example of how those who argue against the scientific consensus don’t understand basic physics.
First, in order to move air you need a force, and empty space doesn’t have force. Vacuums don’t suck. Instead, higher pressure air moves to lower pressure areas. When you use a vacuum cleaner the cleaner creates an area of low pressure. The higher pressure air outside of the vacuum cleaner rushes through the vacuum cleaner to even out the pressure. Air pushes. Vacuums don’t suck. The reason our atmosphere doesn’t move out into space is that the air molecules are moving slower than the escape velocity needed to break Earth’s gravity. Not only that, but as air molecules expend energy moving against Earth’s gravity they cool down and lose velocity. This is why the air pressure on Mt. Everest can be 4 psi while having 14 psi near sea level, and that gradient stays in place at all times. The 10 psi difference between sea level and Mt. Everest is much greater than the 4 psi difference between Mt. Everest and space.
If someone can’t get these simple principles right, what does it say about their ability to judge the basic principles in geology and biology.
Long ago when the wonderful Ann Landers was writing her advice column for the papers, she said that men attending Yale University would write her hoax letters asking for advice. Sometimes she would print them in her column and call the jokers out.
You do know that many of this ilk do not believe gravity exists either, right? There is no arguing with such individuals, and I can see why the forum rules exclude discussions of this topic. It is a completely fruitless endeavor. Read a whole book on the topic recently, and such beliefs are basically like be a member of a cult. No contrary info is allowed in.
I don’t quite understand how they explain falling objects, but gravity, as the rest of us understand it, is not what they believe. If all is flat and there is a dome above the surface, there is no need of gravity, apparently. I know, it goes beyond nonsensical, but if one is attempting to maintain a hyper-literal interpretation of scripture, this is what they do.
Back to age of the earth for a moment, though. I am currently on vacation in Hawaii. The following two pictures display quite adequately, IMO, how the earth has to be much older than 6,000 years. The first picture is from the Island of Hawaii, which is the newest of the main islands. Note the rounded shape of the mountainside and the relatively new lava. Erosion has not yet done much to the Island of Hawaii.
The second picture is on Kauai, which is a much older island, estimated by geologists at about 5 million years of age. Even if one assumes rapid erosion, it is hard to see how mountains like those pictured could be so eroded without at least the passage of tens of thousands of years, and how could be Kauai be so eroded and Hawaii so “uneroded” if they are of approximately the same age. Go figure. One does not even need to accept the validity of radiometric dating to see that a lot longer than a couple thousand years separate the ages if Kauai and Hawaii.
Since we are (supposed to) move away from flat Earth stuff, it is enough to say that it is entirely possible for a round planet to hold onto its atmosphere within the round Earth model.
The rest of the Hawaiian archipelago and Emperor seamounts drives this home. As the hotter crust moves away from the upwelling hotspot it subsides. This can be seen in this diagram of the Hawaiian islands.
Only the Hawaiian islands stick out above the ocean. The rest have subsided over time as each new islands is moved away from the hotspot by the slowly moving plate. Scientists have even studied the impact of subsidence on coral formation since the seamounts offer a look into changing temperature and depth through history.
Of course, no post such as this would be complete without pointing out the rather obvious correlation between radiometric dating and these islands and seamounts.
I like to think that any YEC who visited Hawaii, and at least traveled to Hawaii and Oahu would have a bit of an aha moment and realize that there is no way the islands all arose at the same time, let alone within less than a couple thousand years from one another. Not only are the apparent ages of volcanoes very different, for each island to be over the hot spot and have volcanoes would have required plate movements orders of magnitude faster than normal. Imagine the horrendous and daily earthquakes such movements would have caused!
Rather than quote mining words out of context from the linked article to try and argue that “parameters” are being “set by people,” quote the actual equation that is used to calculate error bars.
Then enlighten us as to exactly which term or terms in the equation represent the “parameters” that you insist are being “set by people.”
Oh, and since you know way more about this stuff than I think you do, you should have no problem in using the appropriate markup to make sure that the equation is formatted correctly in your answer.
I was underplaying it a little, but yeah, the surface of plates moving at speeds proposed by YEC models would essentially result in the surface being molten, at the very least.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
284
None of that’s a problem for a YECist. God does all the necessary magic. As in all textist religion.