First real religious debate outside SD.net

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-07-15 04:05am

Since he thinks that hebrew is a dead language heres a phrase to teach this moron:

timtzotz lehahotcha - go blow your sister

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-07-15 04:07am

Since he thinks that hebrew is a dead language heres a phrase to teach this moron:

timtzotz lehahotcha - go blow your sister

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 05:02am

That truely was worthy of a triple-post.

The message board is back up, I'll wait until later today to post an update.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2003-07-15 05:12am

Tosho wrote:Since he thinks that hebrew is a dead language heres a phrase to teach this moron:

timtzotz lehahotcha - go blow your sister

why only that

tizdain eim eima shelca or "go fuck your moma"

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 05:33am

Okay, check this out:

Hiigaran wrote:This is pathetic. Absolutely.

Gugueater obviously can't defend any of his beliefs without using his very beliefs as some sort of proof.

No evidence to support his claim.

No empirical data.

You won't get what you want out of him because his faith is integral to every defense he has to defend his faith.

Agreed.

Me tearing GuGuEater a new one, again:

I wrote:
Originally posted by GuGuEaTeR
then they aren't true Christians.

According to whom? You?

i explained above. simply there to prove the prophecy of Jesus's coming, and like of like a prelogue.

Right, okay... but remember, there is no proof of Jesus existpng.

well, not like a real Christian would murder or steal purposely anyway.

Oh? Name a few "real Christians" who I might know of, and let's see if I can't tell you about their sins.

that fact that Jesus is there to take out sins is the entire point of Christianity and is the only other way to go to heaven.

No, there's a loophole.

To fulfil the prophetic criteria to be the messiah, Jesus is still alive, and needs to fulfil these when he comes back:

Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)

Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)

Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)

Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).

Okay.

Now jesus said all those who believeth in him will get to heaven. BUT to fulfill prophetic criteria, he will influence EVERYONE on the earth to believe in him when he "returns" because he didn't do it first time.

So surely, belief in him now is not vital, we'll all get risen when he returns and have to believe in him and thereby all will be saved to fulfill messianic prophecy.

Note: Thanks, Rye!

sure, as if i'll use human knowledge to prove the wonders of the universe

Science is all about explaining the wonders of the universe, moron.

2) in four words : Miracle. can also be defined as : Work of God.

Can also be defined as: Still no proof.

it's a theory. it lacks something. you can't prove it. it may work, but it probably won't.

You completely missed my point about theories. If something does not happen 100% of the time the same way, then it cannot be a scientific law. HOWEVER, a theory can happen 99.9% of the time. So, it WILL work, much more often than not.

scientific evidence that God DID create the universe, with .... *shudder* human logic in it

Yes. If you can't provide any evidence, then how can reasonable people be able to believe in god?

good for you. worship them if you will. go ahead, i won't stop you.

You missed the irony there. Look at it this way: "I believe God exists. I have proof he exists. *Points at Bible.* There is proof he exists. Therefore, he does exist." It's completely fallicous and rediculous, yet that is what you are doing.

which is what i said, and also said that most of those people are muslims. people who are Christians and can read hebrew are researchers of the Bible and its history.

That is beside the point. You said that not many people can read Hebrew. Unless, of course, you don't consider non-Christians and/or Muslims to be people.

maybe i try to live purely, and actually do sincerely ask for forgiveness if i DO sin?

That's not what you said before. This is what you did say:

i can safely assume he's a false believer, considering he does break one of the christian rules purposely

Nowhere did you say that "oh, but if I sin, and ask for forgiveness, it's alright". Suppose he asked for forgiveness, hmm?

not a true Christian. probably another Sunday Christian.

How do you know? He could have been the son of the pastor, or he could have led the church choir, or he could have given a guest sermon every month, and you wouldn't have known that. Don't label blatently.

no He didn't, humans did the wrongs first, and He simply purnished.

Oh? What about those who were living in Palistine? All they were doing were living in their rightful territory, and the Israelites slaughtered them and drove them out. That was punishment for what, now?

just like a kid who says 'i don't deserve this' when his/her parents give them purnishments.

Please, enlighten me as to how the first-born of the Egyptians deserved to die.

Oh, and for those interested:

Number of times GuGuEater has tried to use the Bible as evidence for itself (since page 10): 11

Number of times I have told him he cannot do this: 8

I hope you can read between the lines on that, GuGu.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 05:36am

Oh, lookie here...

GuGuEater wrote: do you think i'll answer more when i admited in saying that i can't prove anything anymore, because after that is just pure faith? you are assuming you know everything, however you'll never know why i tried defending Christianity because you never loved God. thus, you'll never get what i'm saying, and will continue defending your side of the belief simply because it is what you are used to.

that and i have no more knowledge to argue. simple as that. what am i supposed to say now, repeat more what i said? i won't.

you can go ahead and try to solve the Christian belief or disprove it yourself. no more input from me.

DarkPrimus wrote: What's that, you're giving up?

Logic: 1
Religous faith: 0

Debate over. I win.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 05:40am

Oh, oh, oh! Wait, apparently, it isn't over.

GuGuEater wrote: no. logic can't win. neither can religion. why, you'll never know. i explained why you'll never know.

i personally lost, since i don't have more knowledge. after all, my profession is computers/science, not literature/history/whatever similar

and you can now be so proud that you know everything. which you don't, but you can assume you do. not like you will change the world anyway.

Ooh, harsh words. But not nearly as harsh as mine.

DarkPrimus wrote: You explained nothing. You only quoted sections from the Bible, which can't even explain itself.

Regardless of profession, can't one have a pastime? I happen to research about religion sometimes. Scary that I know more about Christianity than most Christians, hmm?

Since when did I ever say, or insinuate, that I knew everything? Never. Nor do I assume I do.

not like you will change the world anyway.

If I listened to people like you, perhaps I wouldn't.

Oh, and by the way... since you already admitted defeat, any debating now is just you trying to save face. Which, trust me, won't happen.

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-07-15 10:14am

Bravo!

Next time your in Nihon try this line on the ladys:

Fukaku hamekonde chodai!

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 12:58pm

GuGuEater's reply to me yet again.

GuGuEater wrote: nah, no debating from me. no debating about christianity right or wrong. i won't defend that part. i'll debate about 'you' now, now that you're keeping going about other things when you could have just said 'yay, i won'. but no, you just had to drag it longer

pasttime? only past time i have are to play computer games which btw, is good for my future, or more like current, career.

Star Ocean describes religious matters with questions, not answers. go play it.

then go change the world. if you think you have the ability, why not get out there and change the world so it's better for everyone?

and save face? i didn't even had a face to start most people here don't even know who i am. or even how i live.

Poor little, deluded GuGuEater.

I wrote:
GuGuEaTeR wrote: nah, no debating from me. no debating about christianity right or wrong. i won't defend that part. i'll debate about 'you' now, now that you're keeping going about other things when you could have just said 'yay, i won'. but no, you just had to drag it longer

Actually, I did say "Yay, I won". That's what "Concession Accepted" means. Also, I am not the one dragging it out longer. You are, with your continual posting.

pasttime? only past time i have are to play computer games which btw, is good for my future, or more like current, career.

I use the computer as well. However, I like to be informed about the world around me, and religion is a big part of the world around me. It's good to know more than you need to.

Star Ocean describes religious matters with questions, not answers. go play it.

I should be getting religious philosophy from a game, right... besides, if I wanted religion in my games, I would go play Xenosaga.

then go change the world. if you think you have the ability, why not get out there and change the world so it's better for everyone?

I believe that is why I am continuing my education.

and save face? i didn't even had a face to start most people here don't even know who i am.

They have an opinion of you now: "Idiot who can't defend himself at all."

Compared to before the debate, where people didn't know who you were.

I'd say that's losing face.

Finally, a little backup from someone.

I wrote:
Likkle Baer wrote: No one has any objection to a healthy debate on religion... in fact its jolly good fun! But you need to hold up your side of the argument. Belief in itself is not proof of anything...

Thanks for the backup, Baer, but I've told him about ten times now that faith cannot be used as proof. I don't think one more time make any difference.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-15 01:01pm

Oh, Tosho... what does that mean in English?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-15 02:08pm

good stuff

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-07-16 04:54am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Oh, Tosho... what does that mean in English?

It means: Fuck me hard!

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-16 05:47am

Er, it's just "fuku", in katakana.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-17 07:12pm

Well, it's started again. I posted those oh-so-fun Biblical flood calcuations, and here is what GuGu had to say!

GuGuEater wrote: ou forgot to put in time in that equation. the energy wasn't released in an instant, but over 40 days of time.

now if it's over 40 days, it makes sense. devastating, but not quite so destructive to blow Earth away. and since the raindrops fall towards the gravity hole, and thus the effect of explosions are cancled out by opposing raindrops across the globe, and thus this flood will effectively do nothing but just drop rain and drown everything.

and that calculation also ignores the land mass covered by mountainranges above sea level, which is a lot if calculated. but i don't think anyone would go through the calculation... thus you don't need THAT much water to cover everything.

In reply:

I wrote:
Originally posted by GuGuEaTeR
you forgot to put in time in that equation. the energy wasn't released in an instant, but over 40 days of time.

Doesn't matter about time. Energy of the rain is the same.

devastating, but not quite so destructive to blow Earth away.

Three billion Hiroshima bombs wouldn't "blow Earth away" either...

and since the raindrops fall towards the gravity hole, and thus the effect of explosions are cancled out by opposing raindrops across the globe,

Huh? Where did you hear all this babble? Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

and thus this flood will effectively do nothing but just drop rain and drown everything.

You don't get it, do you. Rain causes erosion. All the worlds soil would be gone, leaving a worldwide wasteland of rock.

and that calculation also ignores the land mass covered by mountainranges above sea level, which is a lot if calculated. but i don't think anyone would go through the calculation... thus you don't need THAT much water to cover everything.

Even with that taken into account, it is still quite accurate.

Now it starts getting personal.

GuGuEater wrote: you are truly an idiot in science DarkPrimus. ok, do you think when you drink water the water disappears and goes into your stream and thus is 'lost' from the Earth's surface?

and you don't even know how airbags work. when you crash, the energy is moved into your body, and causes damage. but if you have airbags, the time taken for the energy is reduced, and thus you don't kill yourself. it's called something, but i don't really care in that department. damn english...

an explosion wouldn't be an explosion if it wasn't done in a few microseconds. it'd just be an energy release. thus the requirement of the size of nuclear weapons. it's outer shelling is required so it 'stores' up the energy prior to explosion, and then it instantly blows up. boom.

[edit] i think it was called impulse... i'm still not sure...

[2nd edit] as for that pseudoscience comment, no, you're wrong again. how do you think your body's sustaining itself with all its pressure from the atmosphere? your each individual cells are also releasing the force outwards, and thus you can stay as you. that's why when you go to space without spacesuits, you blow up. and quite spectacularily too.

it all balances out. the force from the pressure above equals the pressure from below. cancling each other out. simple enough for you?

I wrote:
GuGuEaTeR wrote: you are truly an idiot in science DarkPrimus. ok, do you think when you drink water the water disappears and goes into your stream and thus is 'lost' from the Earth's surface?

Oh that is rich. You calling me an idiot.

When did I say that? The water I drink doesn't just go away. When I pee, it will go into the toilet, or in the groud, and will be cleaned, whether by nature or by man, and will be reused...

Which brings up another good question. To flood all the land on earth requires a lot more water than is on the Earth. Where did that extra water come from?

and you don't even know how airbags work. when you crash, the energy is moved into your body, and causes damage. but if you have airbags, the time taken for the energy is reduced, and thus you don't kill yourself.

What do airbags have to do with this?

an explosion wouldn't be an explosion if it wasn't done in a few microseconds. it'd just be an energy release. thus the requirement of the size of nuclear weapons. it's outer shelling is required so it 'stores' up the energy prior to explosion, and then it instantly blows up. boom.

I was talking about the total energy release of the rain. Just because I use the analogy of an atomic bomb, doesn't mean that the energy was released as an atomic bomb releases energy.

as for that pseudoscience comment, no, you're wrong again. how do you think your body's sustaining itself with all its pressure from the atmosphere? your each individual cells are also releasing the force outwards, and thus you can stay as you. that's why when you go to space without spacesuits, you blow up. and quite spectacularily too.

No shit, that's gravity for you. But what about this "gravity hole" you mention, or "the effect of explosions are cancled out by opposing raindrops across the globe". Not that this was what I was talking about, but please inform me... how does a rainstorm cancel out an explosion?

it all balances out. the force from the pressure above equals the pressure from below. cancling each other out. simple enough for you?

That is pressure. We were talking about gravity.

EDIT: I could use a little help with this whole "gravity hole" shit... if he tries to argue with it much more, I am going to need assistance picking apart all the scientific errors... I don't specialize in that field.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-17 07:41pm

GuGUEater wrote:
DarkPrimus wrote: Oh that is rich. You calling me an idiot.
oh yeah. but i won't say you're an idiot again. phew, good thing i learnt science properly...

When did I say that? The water I drink doesn't just go away. When I pee, it will go into the toilet, or in the groud, and will be cleaned, whether by nature or by man, and will be reused...
same with erosion. do you expect the sediments to disappear? after all, ALL rocks are made from sediments of other rocks. your weird theory of earth eroding to a state of destruction is quite foolish.

unless a material is sent out of Earth's surface, it's still there. water since beginning of earth is equal to amount of water now. just that it's form may have changed into hydrogen and oxygen, but since hydrogen and oxygen can't be lost to outside the earth's atmosphere, it's same all over.

Which brings up another good question. To flood all the land on earth requires a lot more water than is on the Earth. Where did that extra water come from?
there's a theory that suggests a layer of Earth in the primary times where the water instead of the current ozone layer, was there to absorb the radiation from the sun. this 'could' have led to longer life spans of people those days, which does explain the age thing in the bible.

evidence? just keep radiating water away you'll see the result.

What do airbags have to do with this?
because your thought of 'total energy' is just bullshit. same story with airbags. does the total energy matter when your bones are broken? i don't think so...

I was talking about the total energy release of the rain. Just because I use the analogy of an atomic bomb, doesn't mean that the energy was released as an atomic bomb releases energy.

read airbags. how some car safety devices work.
No shit, that's gravity for you. But what about this "gravity hole" you mention, or "the effect of explosions are cancled out by opposing raindrops across the globe". Not that this was what I was talking about, but please inform me... how does a rainstorm cancel out an explosion?
you're so not there. obviously a beginner in science.

if the gravity was even slightly off the center, where do you think the resultant force will move to? it'll condense around other places, and thus no net balance of forces. this will cause massive problems. HOWEVER! since earth is quite spherical, this doesn't happen. rather, all rain drops into the centre of the earth. and think like this; if it rains from one side and the opposing side, what's the resultant force from it? vector calculation shows it's 0. what if it rains everywhere? since it all cancles eachother out, it's 0. then what's the only thing that'll happen? erosion. and does erosion matter? of course it doesn't.

That is pressure. We were talking about gravity.
same concept. force is force. F = F. positive force + negative force = 0. no change of resultant energy.

[quote="DarkPrimus]

DarkPrimus wrote: Oh that is rich. You calling me an idiot.

oh yeah. but i won't say you're an idiot again. phew, good thing i learnt science properly...

You learnt science properly? Then why are you claiming all these impossible things?

same with erosion. do you expect the sediments to disappear? after all, ALL rocks are made from sediments of other rocks. your weird theory of earth eroding to a state of destruction is quite foolish.

Yes, and would those rocks that are exposed be able to grow plants? No. All the sediment ABLE TO SUPPORT LIFE (read:dirt) would be washed away to where the ground is lower (read: where the oceans are now).

unless a material is sent out of Earth's surface, it's still there. water since beginning of earth is equal to amount of water now. just that it's form may have changed into hydrogen and oxygen, but since hydrogen and oxygen can't be lost to outside the earth's atmosphere, it's same all over.

What are you trying to say here?

there's a theory that suggests a layer of Earth in the primary times where the water instead of the current ozone layer, was there to absorb the radiation from the sun. this 'could' have led to longer life spans of people those days, which does explain the age thing in the bible.

That theory is utter BS. Give me a bit to find the evidence to disprove it.

THIS MEANS YOU, SD.NET! Give me the exact reasons why the "extra water" theory is BS.

evidence? just keep radiating water away you'll see the result.

"Radiating water away"? HuH?

What do airbags have to do with this?

because your thought of 'total energy' is just bullshit. same story with airbags. does the total energy matter when your bones are broken? i don't think so...

What? Airbags in the car and... rain falling on the ground are completely different senarios. False analogy.

I was talking about the total energy release of the rain. Just because I use the analogy of an atomic bomb, doesn't mean that the energy was released as an atomic bomb releases energy.[/quote]

read airbags. how some car safety devices work.[/quote]

I know how car safety works, thank you. Stop trying to teach me about airbags and just come out and say what you are trying to say.

No shit, that's gravity for you. But what about this "gravity hole" you mention, or "the effect of explosions are cancled out by opposing raindrops across the globe". Not that this was what I was talking about, but please inform me... how does a rainstorm cancel out an explosion?
you're so not there. obviously a beginner in science.

if the gravity was even slightly off the center, where do you think the resultant force will move to? it'll condense around other places, and thus no net balance of forces. this will cause massive problems. HOWEVER! since earth is quite spherical, this doesn't happen. rather, all rain drops into the centre of the earth. and think like this; if it rains from one side and the opposing side, what's the resultant force from it? vector calculation shows it's 0. what if it rains everywhere? since it all cancles eachother out, it's 0. then what's the only thing that'll happen? erosion. and does erosion matter? of course it doesn't.

PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS A PERFECT SPHERE. Oh wait, it has already been proven that IT ISN'T.

That is pressure. We were talking about gravity.

same concept. force is force. F = F. positive force + negative force = 0. no change of resultant energy.

Since your whole "Positive - Negative =o force" has been disproven, I think you need a new arguement.[/quote]

Okay, now I am going to start to need help refuting some of his claims. He is starting to delve into the realm of pesudosciene, and while I can recognize when he is BSing, I can't always make the statement to disprove him.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-17 11:41pm

No his problem isnt his force bit it is that he is confusing force and energy.

Force is mass times acceleration, basically it can be said in this case that he is right, two equal forces in opposite directions do cancel each other out.

However the problem with the flood is the ENERGY of the rain drops, energy is is mass times acceleration times distance (otherways to make this work but the units for energy follow this, thus a Joule (the SI unit for energy) is also known as a Newton Meter, (newton is the SI unit for force) and can also be writen as kg*m^2/s^2) the energy of the rain drops is what you calculated to be a few billion hiroshima bombs. The problem with the flood is that energy doesnt just disappear. Energy must be conserved. When a raindrop or any other moving object strikes another object the energy of that collision must go somewhere and often it becomes heat. In the case of the flood the combined kinetic energy of the raindrops striking the earth would be converted at least partially into heat and thus the temperature of the earth would be increased and unless the earth can radiate that energy over those 40 days at the same rate as it is absorbing that energy it will increase in temperature potentially to 100 C at which point the water on earth boils and everything living that wasnt already dead is poached.

about that water being where ozone is. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it traps in heat. Thus with that much water in the atmosphere the slight problem of the earth trapping heat becomes something less than slight and the greenhouse effect causes the earth once again to become extremely hot. Water vapor when it is in the atmosphere also reduces atmospheric pressure (this is because of molecular mass, Nitrogen the cheif component in the earth's atmosphere is found as a diatomic gas N2 in the atmosphere, it has a molecular mass of 28 AMU (atomic mass units) whereas water (H2O) has a molecular mass of 18 amu) Water dropping atmospheric pressure is why when it is about to rain barometric pressure drops because of the increased water vapor in the air. life forms living before the flood would have too low interior pressures compared to the post flood atmosphereic pressures and depending on the severity could implode (like things in the deep ocean). Interestingly enough having water act in place of ozone also has the problem that water doesnt block UV rays. Anyone who has been outside all day on an overcast day in the middle of summer knows that you can still get sunburned even with the entire sky covered in clouds. Ohh and can he tell us why in pre-flood times ozone wasnt being created the way it is in the upper atmosphere?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-18 02:48am

First off, GuGu tries to refute a statement by a fellow board member.

GuGuEater wrote:
FayeFayeV wrote: ...That's what you've been argueing? You've got a ------ way of bringing around your point.
thank you for understanding my english.

.....o2 is oxygen we breathe. h2o is water. You don't understand Atoms and Molecules. For every water molecule there are at least two oxygens since water is made up of one Hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. o2 is not water. O is oxygen.
duh, we breath O2. O3 is poison.

omg. one molecule of water has one hydrogen and two oxygen? how... fugging wrong is that? that is the most absurd thing i ever heard. you MUST learn chemistry dear, or even basic math!

Note: Here, GuGu tears at an obvious typo error. How hypcritical, as s/he has told me not to do the same to him/her.

of course O2 is not water. but oxygen cannot be found natually as O as itself, because then it's an ion, and reacts with other chemicals. so when i say oxygen, it's gas, O2.
of course, there's liquid oxygen, but that's beyond this argument's scope.

Ozone was made thanks to oxygen. How can you say this? How did you come to that conclusion?
after seeing your water molecule, i'm terrified.

anyway, how oxygen is used? simple. from water, the water gets 'electrolysised' thanks to sun's energy, and becomes seperate hydrogen and oxygen ions. this ions become are reacted even further to either become O2 or O3. hydrogen ions becomes gases of their own by their own wills.
now, you have ozone from water.

oh I just figured with what your total belief in the Bible, you'd think the earth was only a few thousand years old as the Bible suggests. So, you don't believe part of the bible, eh?
umm, never in bible says that the earth isn't 4 billion years old. that's the catholics.

................You just repeated the exact same thing I just said. And what are you getting at with the rain?
it means you need water up there. thus, contradicting what you say.

No I don't. Because it doesn't. A layer of water would exist too low for it to protect.
what makes you think that the water HAS to stay at cloud level? do you not realise that it can go higher?

Is this refutable, or has GuGu actually made a valid point?

No shit. It's harmless because we have water and Ozone.

and guess what. WATER DOESN'T DO JACK SHIT IN PROTECTION WHEN IT'S IN THE OCEAN! ONLY WHEN IT'S UP AS A LAYER LIKE THE OZONE! i had to yell. gommen. anyway, all water does as ocean right now, is to absorb the heat, and release it slowly throughout the night, making sure the temperature differences between day and night is low.
If that's without water I could believe you. But with it, I'd laugh in your face.

you're making me laugh. yeah, now that you are with my understanding that you probably learnt off me, you're thinking that it absorbs radiation. but didn't you notice that it has to get 'in the way' of the radiation in order to protect us? a shield doesn't do crap when it's on the ground. it does something when it's in front of you.

you're saying water had a different weight back then?
the weight does not matter. the density, does. high temperatures give you any ideas?

Well, duh. What are you getting at?
well, it proves that Noah didn't land on top of Mt Everest. that's all.

Note: What proves Noah didn't land on Mt Everest? Huh? I should ask where Noah probably DID land...

like what? Speak english. During the Ice Age, the level of the oceans dropped severely...the only time that such a great flood could have happened is when the ice age ended...over 100,000 years ago.
see? there you go. ocean levels change. so your saying of that ocean couldn't change during human times is contradictory. and you said about 10000 years too, so there has to have been, in your words, at least 1/10 of what could change. and since that's true, what wouldn't be possible, like your example of, ice age?

If it's BS, then why are you using it as an argument?
it's a BS simply because Sydney is freezing. just my weird thought.

anyway, why i use it? because you don't seem to know much about it.

...........and? Just because it can float there forever doesn't mean enough of it will float there.....and if we had plasma in the atmosphere our sky would be on fire. Since Plasma is, in essence..Fire.
Note: Oooh, I hate it when someone on my side makes a mistake.

plasma = highly energised particle. this can be anything from fire, you said, to microwaved neon. put neon lightbulb in your microwave and see what happens.

and enough of them will float there. seriously.

Water is heavier than oxygen. How in the hell could it get up there and not oxygen? And there's a lower amount of everything in the upper atmossphere.
water is not heavier than oxygen. 1+1+16 < 16+16. that's O2, btw. imagine O3.

Clearly.
yeah, like you know a lot either.

Then, GuGu moves on to my post...

GuGuEater wrote: i see you came back with some research.

DarkPrimus wrote: GuGuEater, you are confusing force and energy.

Force is mass times acceleration, basically it can be said in this case that you are right, two equal forces in opposite directions do cancel each other out.
damn straight.

However the problem with the flood is the ENERGY of the rain drops, energy is is mass times acceleration times distance (otherways to make this work but the units for energy follow this, thus a Joule (the SI unit for energy) is also known as a Newton Meter, (newton is the SI unit for force) and can also be writen as kg*m^2/s^2) the energy of the rain drops is what you calculated to be a few billion hiroshima bombs. The problem with the flood is that energy doesnt just disappear. Energy must be conserved. When a raindrop or any other moving object strikes another object the energy of that collision must go somewhere and often it becomes heat. In the case of the flood the combined kinetic energy of the raindrops striking the earth would be converted at least partially into heat and thus the temperature of the earth would be increased and unless the earth can radiate that energy over those 40 days at the same rate as it is absorbing that energy it will increase in temperature potentially to 100 C at which point the water on earth boils and everything living that wasnt already dead is poached.
that's one big paragraph...

force is directly proportional to energy. why? more force on equal equal mass with same acceleration equals more energy. duh.

in one sentence, you learnt nothing from me. do you EVER realise why i was saying time? sure, the 'net' energy of the entire event is that. i'll take that. but, does it happen in an instant? no. it's over 40 days. because it's over 40 days, you divide it into seconds, which is a lot, and then calculate it. how energy per second. if should be too much, maybe worth about few kilos of C4. now, you were saying about water boiling?

impulse law.

Ft =mv - mu

therefore

F = (mv - mu) / t

learn that equation. see, time is important that calculates the impulse energy received during the raining.

you certainly don't know science. go learn more and come back.

EDIT: Some genius you are, to confuse force and energy.
and YOU are now a serious idiot for saying that.

[edit]you guys won't see me for about... 17 hours now. no more internet for me today...

My reply...

I wrote:
GuGuEaTeR wrote:
oh I just figured with what your total belief in the Bible, you'd think the earth was only a few thousand years old as the Bible suggests. So, you don't believe part of the bible, eh?

umm, never in bible says that the earth isn't 4 billion years old. that's the catholics.

The Catholics used the Bible to calculate that. You can't argue with the Bible.

no shit. It's harmless because we have water and Ozone.

and guess what. WATER DOESN'T DO JACK SHIT IN PROTECTION WHEN IT'S IN THE OCEAN! ONLY WHEN IT'S UP AS A LAYER LIKE THE OZONE! i had to yell. gommen. anyway, all water does as ocean right now, is to absorb the heat, and release it slowly throughout the night, making sure the temperature differences between day and night is low.

You didn't answer the question. Where did all the water come from for the flood? It couldn't have all been in the oceans, because then the world would have been flooded to begin with.

you're saying water had a different weight back then?

the weight does not matter. the density, does. high temperatures give you any ideas?

Actually, weight would factor in.

like what? Speak english. During the Ice Age, the level of the oceans dropped severely...the only time that such a great flood could have happened is when the ice age ended...over 100,000 years ago.
see? there you go. ocean levels change. so your saying of that ocean couldn't change during human times is contradictory. and you said about 10000 years too, so there has to have been, in your words, at least 1/10 of what could change. and since that's true, what wouldn't be possible, like your example of, ice age?

He said 100,000 years, not 10,000 years. As FayeFayeV said, only during the Ice Age could such a drastic change in the oceans levels occur. She is contradicting nothing.

Since Plasma is, in essence..Fire.

Not really, FayeFaye, since fire requires oxygen to burn, whereas plasma does not.

force is directly proportional to energy. why? more force on equal equal mass with same acceleration equals more energy. duh.

You obviously missed my previous posts. Your example of force cancellation only works on a PERFECT SPHERE, which the Earth is not.

in one sentence, you learnt nothing from me. do you EVER realise why i was saying time? sure, the 'net' energy of the entire event is that. i'll take that. but, does it happen in an instant? no. it's over 40 days. because it's over 40 days, you divide it into seconds, which is a lot, and then calculate it. how energy per second. if should be too much, maybe worth about few kilos of C4. now, you were saying about water boiling?

The temperature WAS calculated for rain over a duration of 40 days, moron.

Read again:

However the problem with the flood is the ENERGY of the rain drops, energy is is mass times acceleration times distance (otherways to make this work but the units for energy follow this, thus a Joule (the SI unit for energy) is also known as a Newton Meter, (newton is the SI unit for force) and can also be writen as kg*m^2/s^2) the energy of the rain drops is what you calculated to be a few billion hiroshima bombs. The problem with the flood is that energy doesnt just disappear. Energy must be conserved. When a raindrop or any other moving object strikes another object the energy of that collision must go somewhere and often it becomes heat. In the case of the flood the combined kinetic energy of the raindrops striking the earth would be converted at least partially into heat and thus the temperature of the earth would be increased and unless the earth can radiate that energy over those 40 days at the same rate as it is absorbing that energy it will increase in temperature potentially to 100 C at which point the water on earth boils and everything living that wasnt already dead is poached.

you certainly don't know science. go learn more and come back.

You can say I don't know science, but the fact remains that I am refuting everything you throw at me.

EDIT: Some genius you are, to confuse force and energy.

and YOU are now a serious idiot for saying that.

Why am I an idiot for speaking the truth? Fine then... you are an idiot for believing in the rediculous.

Now then... as GuGu said, s/he'll be AFK for 17 hours or so... plenty of time to re-arm my slings and arrows... anybody got suggestions for topics?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-18 12:02pm

I wrote: You know GuGu, it's really hard to quote you when you don't seperate your post the original quote at all.

GuGuEaTeR wrote:

DarkPrimus wrote: The Catholics used the Bible to calculate that. You can't argue with the Bible.
i don't know how they calculated it, but certainly they did it weirdly.

Oh, bitch and complain. Point is, the Bible says so.

You didn't answer the question. Where did all the water come from for the flood? It couldn't have all been in the oceans, because then the world would have been flooded to begin with.
while the earth was being developed, it created a layer of water near where out current ozone layer is, because that water layer was required for protection of life forms on earth. one day, it just rained.

Do you forget everything said after a certain amount of days? Water *cancels* the ozone layers protection against UV rays.

He said100,000 years, not 10,000 years. As FayeFayeV said, only during the Ice Age could such a drastic change in the oceans levels occur. She is contradicting nothing.
no. even now there's changes in the ocean. she was saying that the ocean level could NOT possibly change, while she says it can now.

Debate of semantics. Her point was that it could not change to the scale needed for the Biblical Flood, not not changing at all.

Not really, FayeFaye, since fire requires oxygen to burn, whereas plasma does not.
you too don't know what plasma is. plasma isn't fire.

DID YOU EVEN FUCKING READ WHAT I TYPED. I JUST SAID THAT PLASMA ISN'T FIRE.

You obviously missed my previous posts. Your example of force cancellation only works on a PERFECT SPHERE, which the Earth is not.
now you can see why the energy does not cause any other damage to earth than erosion because overally it cancles out.

That only works for a perfect sphere. I don't know why you keep thinking that the earth is a perfect sphere, but it isn't. Also, that would be for FORCE, not energy. Furthermore, it still doesn't address the temperature issues.

The temperature WAS calculated for rain over a duration of 40 days, moron.
think about it this way. is the water that rains when it rains at your place boil?

does each raindrop have enough energy to heat itself to hot temperatures?

no. it does not. then how would you expect that the rain WILL cause a temperature rise?

sure, your calculation shows that. but you do realise that overall, it doesn't do anything to the temperature.

I have been outside during a flashflood. It is raining like hell, but it is fucking HOT outside.

The extreme temperature calculated works because it takes into account the amount of rain needed to fall in 40 days to flood all land of the Earth.

Why am I an idiot for speaking the truth? Fine then... you are an idiot for believing in the rediculous.
maybe because you haven't realised that in this case, the force and energy is directly proportional to each other. a is same. d is same. m is same. the direction of the force? it's there. energy is scalar, while force is vector. in order to calculate the cancling out effect, you need vector. so, i used force. hope you understand...

If you are so smart, would you like to debate certified scientist on this matter? I know some, and can direct you to a place to debate them. PM me about it.[/quote]

I think you can infer what I am talking about in that last couple of sentences... how about it folks? Should I invite him here for the royal treatment?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-07-18 01:27pm

I think you can infer what I am talking about in that last couple of sentences... how about it folks? Should I invite him here for the royal treatment?

Yeah, but i wouldn't expect them to stay.

Their view of rain is really weird, from what i understand she thinks that all rain falls at the same time and is equally spread over everything all in one go.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-18 01:33pm

Rye wrote: Yeah, but i wouldn't expect them to stay.

You never know... GuGu seems like the kind of person who never likes to admit defeat... I mean, he conceded the debate, and is still going!

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-19 12:58am

also call him on his other bluff, he is saying that rain is comming from where? where the ozone is, considerably higher up than normal clouds, meaning that the raindrops would drop with even greater velocity, thus greater kenetic energy, which once they strike the earth will cause even greater heat/temperature increase.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-19 01:09pm

He even drew me a diagram showing how the rain would cancel out because it was dropping on all sides of the earth. Too bad his diagram of the Earth wasn't a perfect circle.

I have to remember to point that out when the board is back up.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-19 02:15pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:He even drew me a diagram showing how the rain would cancel out because it was dropping on all sides of the earth. Too bad his diagram of the Earth wasn't a perfect circle.

I have to remember to point that out when the board is back up.

Here's the thing. Doesn't equal pressure on all sides COMPRESS the object?!?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-19 03:07pm

He was talking about how "the force of the rain on one side of the world cancels out the force of the rain on the opposite side".

It's hard to be that stupid and be able to not fall back on the "Bible says so" excuse every time. (GuGu has only done it every other time.)

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-20 11:14pm

well he is right in a sense, the rain would cancel out each other's force against the earth which means that the earth probably wouldnt be pushed out of orbit by the rain, but that is ALL it means. the heat still exists, ask him this question, does hitting his leg with two hammers at exact opposite sides of it mean that they cancel out and he doesnt break a knee cap? If he says yes, tell him to test the hypothesis, on himself.