Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids3.html gahhhhhh! Seriously? How far can one move the goal posts? There would be NO rover on Mars if it weren't for real science, and not gobbledegook.. *sigh* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 "Mars is just a light, it has no water on its surface. As for Venus, well that's just Lucifer, not a planet." - KJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids3.html "Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars." That is what happens when we start teaching religion instead of science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^^ hehe In any other circumstance.. other than religion.. these people would be considered mentally ill, at the very least disordered in their thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 That wasn't water they found. It was dinosaur urine.... Sorry but I couldn't resist.... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 lol awesome can see the headlines now.... "ALIEN DINOSAUR URINE ON MARS PROVES GODDIDIT!" on page 3... Ken Ham has his first orgasm... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 lol awesome can see the headlines now.... Ken Ham has his first orgasm... Im pretty sure he's read the story of David and Jonathan before. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 surely you aren't suggesting that Ken is... teh gay? Blasphemer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^^^ lol @ "Bitch, please!" this site just gets better 'n' better... there is a call for a debate! Although from what i read it's very set-up is already biased. I would really like to know how a MECHANICAL ENGINEER can debate, say.. a biologist, biochemist, physicist... or even cosmologist. Oh, but if you are a scientist, of any kind, you must know everything there is to know! (does dentistry count?) Reminds me of Sheldon and Wolowitz.. teehee http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html#wp3116043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 28, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted September 28, 2012 All it proves is ALIENS. That's what everything proves. Don't people watch History Channel any more? Sheesh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 never mind... even other creationists don't take this guy seriously that said, how do you upload a pic from your computer to posts here? (yup, i'm not all that brainy!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 Florduh... I'm starting to think there's more evidence for aliens.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Reality Check! "The salty water [found on Mars today] came from above. Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars. This gave asteroids frequent opportunities to collide with Mars." "These Martian hydrodynamic cycles quickly “ran out of steam,” because Mars receives relatively little heat from the Sun. While the consequences were large for Mars, the total water was small by Earth’s standards—about twice the water in Lake Michigan." Notice the time-frame these bozo's are working with? Soon after Earth's global flood. Which would be around 4,000 B.C., if you're a Creationist. The delivery of water to Mars by asteroids quickly ran out of steam. Mainstream science tells us that asteroids have been impacting Mars for billions of years, not just a couple of millennia ago. (Earth got hit 65 million years ago, wiping out the dinos.) Twice the water in Lake Michigan. That's a hell of a lot of water for asteroids to deliver to the red planet in just a few thousand years. Asteroids could deliver that huge volume of water over billions of years, but not in ten or twenty centuries. Sorry, but such a ridiculously small time-frame simply doesn't allow nature to deliver the amount of water we know is there. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 radiometer effect? (′rād·ē′äm·əd·ər i′fekt) (physics) The effect of the temperature of a surface on the pressure exerted on it in a low vacuum, due to the effect on the momentum transferred to gas molecules colliding with the surface. I'm sure there's a mathematical formula for this... somewhere. BUT! how does that explain how water got from earth.... to mars.... on/in asteroids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 oh oh.. sheesh I'm dumb! He's saying that the flood on earth was caused by asteroids! (don't comets carry way more water/ice? what's wrong with comets? why doesn't he like comets!!!!) 4000 years ago ooooookay then (backs away slowly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 where'd all the water go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultifariousBirdLady Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 http://www.creations...Asteroids3.html "Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 radiometer effect? (′rād·ē′äm·əd·ər i′fekt) (physics) The effect of the temperature of a surface on the pressure exerted on it in a low vacuum, due to the effect on the momentum transferred to gas molecules colliding with the surface. I'm sure there's a mathematical formula for this... somewhere. BUT! how does that explain how water got from earth.... to mars.... on/in asteroids? Because God moves in mysterious ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Obviously god did it to test our faith just like with the dinosaur bones. Or satan counterfitted it just like he did with Easter thousands of years before chrsit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 wait? what? so who is the trickster? Satan? God? I'm so confused 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 hehehehehe "how dare he insult my knowledge of ancient dentistry" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 oh oh.. sheesh I'm dumb! He's saying that the flood on earth was caused by asteroids! (don't comets carry way more water/ice? what's wrong with comets? why doesn't he like comets!!!!) 4000 years ago ooooookay then (backs away slowly) Not dumb, I have seen woos suggest the pock marks on the moon were caused by rocks being flung out of the atmosphere when the fountains of the deep erupted. The water spouts were apparently 20km high. You can't make this shit up... Oh wait you can When discussing the fludd, you suspend all physics and biology and geology, then it works... Dumb fucktards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 never mind... even other creationists don't take this guy seriously that said, how do you upload a pic from your computer to posts here? (yup, i'm not all that brainy!) If you have a URL for the pic click the icon on the lower tool bar and paste the link in, I assume you know how to copy and paste? If pic is on your PC, click More Reply Options if you are using the quicky box and there you can attach files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 ahh... okay... more options. Thanks! umm.... The moon is at an average distance of 238,855 miles from earth. That's one hell of a water spout! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 radiometer effect? (′rād·ē′äm·əd·ər i′fekt) (physics) The effect of the temperature of a surface on the pressure exerted on it in a low vacuum, due to the effect on the momentum transferred to gas molecules colliding with the surface. I'm sure there's a mathematical formula for this... somewhere. BUT! how does that explain how water got from earth.... to mars.... on/in asteroids? Here's a bit more on this, Ravenstar. http://en.wikipedia....okes_radiometer This is what is being referred to, when it comes the radiometer effect on those water-filled asteroids. Our Creationist friends are, however, not just wrong about this, they're also confusing the Radiometer effect with the Yarkovsky effect. The two are not the same and the first one cannot work in deep space. The reason why is covered in the Wiki page, in the section, 'External radiant source motion'. Here's the specific detail. "The air pressure inside the bulb needs to strike a balance between too low and too high. A strong vacuum inside the bulb does not permit motion, because there are not enough air molecules to cause the air currents that propel the vanes and transfer heat to the outside before both sides of each vane reach thermal equilibrium by heat conduction through the vane material." The mistake being made here is to wrongly construe that ALL of the air has been removed from the bulb and the vanes are turning in a vacuum. This is not so. There is air inside the bulb. It's at a low pressure, but it isn't a vacuum. If it were a vacuum, the vanes could not rotate, as explained above. Therefore, it is also wrong for the Creationists to claim that the Radiometer effect would function in the vacuum of deep space, between the planets. The Radiometer effect could not push the asteroids anywhere. That idea is incorrectly based upon the notion of light pressure. "Crookes incorrectly suggested that the force was due to the pressure of light." That quote comes from the section, 'Explanation for the force on the vanes'. If you read thru the four points, you'll see that light pressure is not involved the correct explanation for the Radiometer effect. So, this is a double-fail for the Creationists. Not only does the Radiometer effect not work in the vacuum of space, but the reason they thought it did is also wrong. Lastly, they were probably being confused by this, the Yarkovsky effect. http://en.wikipedia....arkovsky_effect This is caused by the difference in heating between the sunlit and shaded sides of a rotating asteroid. Ok, the Yarkovsky effect is real, but the Creationists cannot use it in their kooky pseudo-scientific 'theories'. There are three reasons why. First, the effect operates over millions of years, not just the 6,000 year time-frame the Bible forces the Creationists to work within. From the Wiki page... (emboldenings are mine) "In general, the effect is size dependent, and will affect the semi-major axis of smaller asteroids, while leaving large asteroids practically unaffected. For kilometre-sized asteroids, the Yarkovsky effect is minuscule over short periods: the force on 6489 Golevka is estimated at about 0.25 newton, for a net acceleration of 10−10 m/s². But it is steady; over millions of years an asteroid's orbit can be perturbed enough to transport it from the asteroid belt to the inner Solar System." Secondly, the effect is very difficult to pin down and make meaningful predictions about - which is exactly what this is... "Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars. This gave asteroids frequent opportunities to collide with Mars." From the Wiki page, again... For a specific asteroid, it is very hard to predict the exact impact of the Yarkovsky effect on its orbit. This is because its magnitude depends on many variables that are hard to determine from the limited observational information that is available. These include the exact shape of the asteroid, its orientation, and its albedo, along with its variations over the surface and with wavelength. Calculations are further complicated by the effects of shadowing and thermal "reillumination", whether caused by local craters or a possible overall concave shape. The Yarkovsky effect also competes with radiation pressure. whose net effect may cause similar small long-term forces for bodies with albedo variations and/or non-spherical shapes. As an example, even for the simple case of the pure seasonal Yarkovsky effect on a spherical body in a circular orbit with 90° obliquity, semi-major axis changes could differ by as much as a factor of two between the case of a uniform albedo and the case of a strong north/south albedo asymmetry. Depending on the object's orbit and spin axis, the Yarkovsky change of the semi-major axis may be reversed simply by changing from a spherical to a non-spherical shape. If it's very hard to predict the impact of the Yarkovsky effect on the orbit of just one specific asteroid, how is it then possible to claim that many asteroids were spiraled [typo!] out of the asteroid belt ? Also, do you see where radiation (light) pressure is mentioned? It competes with the Yarkovsky effect. Possibly negating it and probably reducing it. So, once again, the Creationists have got this all wrong. The third and last reason the Creationists cannot appeal to the Yarkovsky effect is this. "Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars. This gave asteroids frequent opportunities to collide with Mars." Huh? The asteroids were spiraled [typo!] OUT TO the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars? So they originated inside the orbit of Mars? Among the inner planets? Ummm... that's not what proper astronomical science concludes. Look again at what the Yarkovsky effect does. "But it is steady; over millions of years an asteroid's orbit can be perturbed enough to transport it from the asteroid belt to the inner Solar System." Asteroids move inwards, from the Asteroid Belt beyond Mars and into the inner solar system. The Creationists say the opposite, that they spiral outwards, to the asteroid belt. Wrong! So Ravenstar, when we sum it all up, here's the damage. The Radiometer effect isn't light pressure, nor is it the Yarkovsky effect. The Radiometer effect cannot work in deep space. The Yarkovsky effect works over million-year timescales, not the Creationist ones of 5 or 6 millennia. The Yarkovsky effect is very hard to predict, making sweeping generalizations about it... meaningless. Radiation (light) pressure competes with the Yarkovsky effect, further complicating predictions. The Yarkovsky effect moves asteroids inwards, towards the Sun, not outwards, away from it. Ravenstar wrote... BUT! how does that explain how water got from earth.... to mars.... on/in asteroids? The simple answer is...It doesn't! 'nuff said? BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts