XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: talk.atheism   
   From: tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net   
      
   "Pastor Dave"  wrote in message   
   news:t85jc0d5n87h3bpo5atv0nt048b7jmr31r@4ax.com...   
   > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:23:53 -0400, Raymond Griffith   
   >  posted thusly:   
   >   
   > >Pastor Dave wrote:   
   > >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:32:47 -0400, Raymond Griffith   
   > >>  posted thusly:   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>>But the big problem is your position that the laws of physics were   
   > >>>somehow tremendously different before the flood than afterward. That is   
   > >>>rather difficult to understand.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> That's a lie and we both know it.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >No. You assert that rates of decay were somehow altered by the flood or   
   > >different before the flood than afterward.   
   >   
   > The current laws of physics would not have to change   
   > for that to be true.  All it means is that the rate   
   > would not have been constant, as you people claim.   
   > Leaching is a big problem in more than one type of   
   > dating.  About 60% of the potassium can be leached out   
   > of an iron meteorite in about 4 1/2 hours, by distilled   
   > water.  You make too many assumptions about something   
   > you know very little about.   
   >   
   >   
   > >You assert that a huge layer   
   > >of water could exist in the atmosphere -- which would in today's world   
   > >make life unlivable simply with the atmospheric pressure!   
   >   
   > 1) Water is still found in space.   
      
   Usually in comets.   
      
   >   
   > 2) We aren't talking about today's world, so you're   
   > attempting to build a straw man.   
   >   
      
   Not at all. This is also partly the point. The physical processes at work   
   today were also at work in the past. We are able to understand the past by   
   the processes we see today.   
      
   > 3) The Earth's atmosphere used to have greater pressure   
   > and more oxygen.  Anyone who has studied, knows that.   
   >   
      
   Hmmph. And how much more pressure would a "water vapor canopy" able to   
   supply even 1/10 of the waters of the Flood have added to the earth? What   
   would that do to the visibility of the stars? What would living conditions   
   be like under it? You have no idea, do you?   
      
   >   
   > >-- yet life   
   > >somehow thrived under it.   
   >   
   > Which is what it would do.  There would also be other   
   > benefits, such as increased size, faster healing   
   > abilities, etc..   
      
   Buzz! Sorry! Morris mythology doesn't work.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >You assert that it never rained before the   
   > >Flood (an unwarranted extension of Scripture, I might note).   
   >   
   > Genesis 2:5-6   
   >   
   > 5) And every plant of the field before it was in the   
   > earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for   
   > the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,   
   > and there was not a man to till the ground.   
   > 6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered   
   > the whole face of the ground.   
   >   
      
   All these verses say is that God didn't cause any rain to come before He   
   created man and before plants in the field were growing. Its says absolutely   
   nothing about what happened after God created man, and certainly doesn't   
   claim that it never rained until the Flood of Noah.   
      
   >   
   > >So somehow   
   > >the hydrologic cycle obeyed vastly different laws. You assert that the   
   > >speed of light is slowing down (or at least has been).   
   >   
   > Not different laws, different circumstances.  If I pour   
   > some water on a ramp and it flows down to the ground   
   > and then I bring the ramp almost level, so that there   
   > is very little water flow, have I changed the laws of   
   > physics, or just the conditions in which they operate   
   > under, thereby getting a different result?   
      
   This doesn't follow. A mist from the ground couldn't provide the water   
   necessary for lush growth. By postulating that it didn't rain, you are   
   removing the evaporation/condensation cycle.   
      
   Think about it. We know that there was a river, so water was being removed   
   from higher ground to lower ground. Without rain, how was the water table   
   recharged? Or are you saying that the whole land area was swamp?   
      
   You contend that the first rainbow was *after* the Flood. Didn't light   
   passing through mist break up into separate colors as it does today? Why   
   not?   
      
   As for the speed of light declining, if the "ramp" lowers, the laws of   
   physics have changed. You simply do not understand the consequences of what   
   you claim has happened.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >With all of the objections you have tried to put into place against   
   > >uniformitarianism, you wind up assuming a world with very different laws   
   > >of physics.   
   >   
   > No, I don't.  That's ignorance speaking.  It is you who   
   > doesn't take into account the laws of physics and seem   
   > to think they would only exist, if your imaginary   
   > little world is reality.   
      
   Dave, I really have to shake my head here. You can accuse me of not taking   
   into account the laws of physics, but you are the one demonstrating a   
   complete lack of understanding of them. Where *do* you get your information   
   from?   
      
   Sigh.   
      
   It is really difficult trying to keep a right attitude toward you, you know.   
   You look on your own ignorance as knowledge, and you look on the expertise   
   and understanding of scientists in their field as ignorance. It would be   
   amusing if it weren't so pitiful.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >You can't get away from it. If the laws were the same then   
   > >as they are now, you will have the same processes. You can't make a   
   > >difference without different laws.   
   >   
   > You can have the same processes.  You can also   
   > interfere with those processes, within the boundaries   
   > of physics, as I have demonstrated above.   
   >   
      
   You haven't demonstrated anything, though! You have provided no argument   
   which demonstrates any kind of understanding of the physics involved or the   
   consequences of your ideas.   
      
   >   
   > >The only reason you think I'm lying is that you are uneducated in   
   > >science and have no resources to think through the ultimate meaning of   
   > >your assertions. That could be remedied, if you cared enough to actually   
   > >study the subject. You could start at your local community college.   
   >   
   > No sir, it is you who hasn't studied and is ignorant.   
   > You have no idea what effects the amount of decay.   
      
   You certainly don't.   
      
   Regards,   
      
   Raymond E. Griffith   
      
   >   
   >   
   > --   
   >   
   > ± Pastor Dave Raymond ±   
   >   
   > "As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor   
   > to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;   
   > thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right   
   > before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16   
   >   
   > "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of   
   > the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17   
   >   
   >                    /}   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)