Posted on 06/30/2006 8:26:43 AM PDT by DannyTN
How about grasping the implications of assuming all natural processes have always taken place at the same rate? Can you dumb that down to my level, too? What is the speed of thought?
Somebody is finding that sucker about every three weeks now..
Eeew, I hate ramen.
Thanks, everyone, this has been the most enjoyable read in a long time!
The only people I've come across who've written about redshift variability are in the YEC camp.
http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html
I admit I haven't looked for info in other sources. Jargon laden explanations = a heavy slog, a slog I'll take if the source is recommened. Any theories, theorists you favor?
Cryogenic storage, using a donkey-powered Bronze Age air liquifier with olive oil as a cryo-protectant. Or at least, that is how I would have done it.
The total water supply of the world is 326 million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube (a square box) measuring one mile on each side). A cubic mile of water equals more than one trillion gallons.
About 3,100 cubic miles of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
I think you are missing the point that even if you allow for changes in the fundamental constants and process rates, for which one could argue there is some evidence, it still does not leave you with an obvious model that remotely suggests the world is less than 10,000 years old. That idea and its implication, when considered, do not plausibly have the ability to generate anything remotely like the outcome you are looking for.
Slow changes in constants are plausible but difficult to measure, and science is very open to the idea (it comes up often enough in the science journals). It is possible to construct relatively consistent models that show how that could occur and leave us with what we see today. But the only way you can get 10,000 years out of the existing system with the existing evidence would be very heavy-handed and irregular/inconsistent wholesale reshaping of the universe specifically for the purpose of creating that illusion. Science is quite okay with idea of a universe with constants that have changed, as it is not inconsistent with what we see within certain parameters. Science would reject the less than 10,000 year notion because there is no evidence that you could get there from here even if the universal constants changed significantly. All such changes have predictable consequences, at least in science.
If you believe God bludgeoned the universe into its current shape in less than 10,000 years, that is fine. But there is zero evidence that supports that as a remotely plausible scientific hypothesis.
Nice answer to a question I didn't ask. I asked about the scientific law stipulating that the amount of water on the earth was unchanging.
On a more serious note, cryogenic preservation has come a long way in the last decade or two. I have a couple friends who are top researchers in that field. Organ and tissue cryo-preservation is really not much of a problem. The tricky parts for doing whole living organisms are deceptively simple e.g. getting the entire organism to warm up and cool down at approximately the same rate. A living critter that is half thawed and half frozen is not a happy critter. Still, they complexity of the critters and systems they can semi-reliably do this to increase every year.
But the parent post made a good point: if one presumes that the story is intended to be taken literally, how does one explain away the obvious problems that emerge from said literal interpretation. Any fool can see that nothing that we know of can support a literal interpretation, and the only explanations proffered are far beyond what any rational or intelligent person should be expected to swallow. Do I believe a literal interpretation or my lying eyes?
That particular story needs all the scientific help it can get, no matter how implausible the science. Next you'll tell me that the Hindus really have it all figured out.
Amen, brother
BTW, catastrophism, a generally accepted process whereby the geological record was formed, tends to be a "heavy-handed" process. How much water can be found inside the earth at depths of 10-20 kilometers?
"Why bother? The usual sillies from the people whose thought balloons cannot be popped by any dose of reality whatsoever"
Their's is the "triumph of an ego"...if something is bigger than they are, why it just could'nt be real...for if it was real , then their superior, rational intellect could comprehend it.......
I didn't know humility was and odd view?
mans knowedge is inferior. just as car knowledge is inferior to man's
just have to spend a little time studing His creation to know this. Man seems to get all pride/boast-ful when we are able to copy his createativity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8498621/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.