NationStates Jolt Archive

...
...

Did you not notice the last sentence in the post you quoted?

Apparently not. Though noticing and understanding are two different things, so it is possible.

Unlikely. The amount of water can't be accounted for that way, as any attempt to argue mass evaporation runs into a little problem we call "kinetic energy."

I said nothing of evaporation.

The process results in an increase in height on the order of a centimeter or three per century. Try again, kiddo.

According to you when did the earth begin.

I said nothing of evaporation.

Um...ok. So what exactly did you mean by the bolded part below?

back into the oceans, underground, and into the atmosphere.

You do realize that we can easily page-back to figure out if you're lying through your teeth, right?

Um...ok. So what exactly did you mean by the bolded part below?



You do realize that we can easily page-back to figure out if you're lying through your teeth, right?

I forgot about that. It split between the places I said above.

I forgot about that. It split between the places I said above.

Split how? Got an idea of what the proportions would be?

Split how? Got an idea of what the proportions would be?

Yes one third went back into the ocean making it a slight bit deeper. Another third went back underground. And the last third evaporated into the air.

I said nothing of evaporation.

:p Ever heard of evaporation


Oh really?

Yes one third went back into the ocean making it a slight bit deeper. Another third went back underground. And the last third evaporated into the air.

So you're saying that several million cubic feet of water evaporated into the atmosphere?

Do you have any idea how much the temperature of the earth's atmosphere would increase as a result of a sudden input of that much water? Everything that hadn't died in the flood would pressure cook almost instantly.

So you're saying that several million cubic feet of water evaporated into the atmosphere?

Do you have any idea how much the temperature of the earth's atmosphere would increase as a result of a sudden input of that much water? Everything that hadn't died in the flood would pressure cook almost instantly.

only one third of the flood evaporated.

only one third of the flood evaporated.

So you're saying that several million cubic feet of water evaporated into the atmosphere? ....
>_>

So you're saying that several million cubic feet of water evaporated into the atmosphere? ....
>_>

*highfive*

Quick, what's one third of 9 million cubic feet of water? :D

*highfive*

Quick, what's one third of 9 million cubic feet of water? :D

3 million off the top of my head. don't really care though.

3 million off the top of my head. don't really care though.

Why? Don't have a clue the amount of heat the evaporation of 3 million cubic feet of water into the atmosphere would generate?

But they don't grow at a rate that would make a significant difference over a paltry 6000 years.

Not even if you water them? :D

Wow, I never realised how easy it was to be a Creation Scientist...

Not even if you water them? :D

Wow, I never realised how easy it was to be a Creation Scientist...

nah, that's just plain gardening. a Creationist would say "God made it happen" the fact that science shows that it cannot be done without God's hand is proof that God created the world. ;)

Not even if you water them? :D

Wow, I never realised how easy it was to be a Creation Scientist...

Nah, it's impossible to be a Creation Scientist. It's like being a square circle.

back into the oceans, underground, and into the atmosphere.

What part of "there is not enough water in the oceans, underground, and in the atmosphere to account for the flood" don't you get?

What part of "there is not enough water in the oceans, underground, and in the atmosphere to account for the flood" don't you get?

This part.

Nah, it's impossible to be a Creation Scientist. It's like being a square circle.

But it's easy to be a square circle... or a circular square, for that matter.
a square circle is a circle who is uncool, who is not part of the "in" crowd
and have you ever seen a square dance? those squares are frequently about as circular as 8 people can get...

"I do not hold slaves myself, I just let other people do it for me".
Hypocritical.

Hypocritical is irrelevent. We are discussing whether Ramses II ruled over a slaveholder Egypt. The evidence doesn't come out in favour of it. It doesn't matter if their neighbours were, or if they traded with slavers - the question is - were THEY slaveholders?

If they weren't, we either have to assume the Exodus account doesn't connect to Ramses II... or it's pure fiction.

There was a firmiment.

what do you think "firmament" means?

what do you think "firmament" means?

Its a word that means TI is right...
:rolleyes:

what do you think "firmament" means?a firm sky sphere.

a firm sky sphere.

yes but what does HE think it means? he seems to think that it was a huge band of liquid water (as opposed to water vapor) in the sky waiting for the day that god needed a big ass flood.

yes but what does HE think it means? he seems to think that it was a huge band of liquid water (as opposed to water vapor) in the sky waiting for the day that god needed a big ass flood.HE does not think

yes but what does HE think it means? he seems to think that it was a huge band of liquid water (as opposed to water vapor) in the sky waiting for the day that god needed a big ass flood.
To be fair, that's in-line with much medieval-and-onwards Christian theology:

'Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.'

Genesis 1:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN+1:6-8&version=50;) (New King James Version)

It's not as if Tucker Island has come up with this off the top of his head.

To be fair, that's in-line with much medieval-and-onwards Christian theology:

'Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.'

Genesis 1:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN+1:6-8&version=50;) (New King James Version)

It's not as if Tucker Island has come up with this off the top of his head.


no i understand that but it does go on to say that the sun moon and stars are stuck into that firmament. it cant be a layer of water in the sky.

no i understand that but it does go on to say that the sun moon and stars are stuck into that firmament. it cant be a layer of water in the sky.
I think quibbling over the abilities of an omnipresent, omnipotent God, who can quite easily create Night and Day before he creates the Sun and the Moon, is rather futile. If he existed, he could simply create a layer of water with stars 'stuck' into it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/FlammarionWoodcut.jpg).

It's fucking God, for... his sake.


EDIT: All I mean is, if someone is convinced that there exists a supreme being with as much power as the Abrahamic god has, then 'merely' waving scientific evidence contrary to their take on Earth's creation won't do much.

I think quibbling over the abilities of an omnipresent, omnipotent God, who can quite easily create Night and Day before he creates the Sun and the Moon, is rather futile. If he existed, he could simply create a layer of water with stars 'stuck' into it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/FlammarionWoodcut.jpg).

It's fucking God, for... his sake.


EDIT: All I mean is, if someone is convinced that there exists a supreme being with as much power as the Abrahamic god has, then 'merely' waving scientific evidence contrary to their take on Earth's creation won't do much.

lol

granted

perhaps after the great deluge, the sun moon and stars detached from the sky, migrated millions of miles into space, expanded expotentially and became what we know them to be today.

its not impossible for god. just unsupported by science, religion, logic and evidence.


edit**

oooo cool pic. yeah just like that. its a whole different image of how the universe is set up.

no i understand that but it does go on to say that the sun moon and stars are stuck into that firmament. it cant be a layer of water in the sky.then why is it blue?

then why is it blue?

the sky is not blue because of water content. water is blue because it reflects the sky.

if that was your point...

ok maybe i meant "huh?"

the sky is not blue because of water content. water is blue because it reflects the sky.

if that was your point...

ok maybe i meant "huh?":D

actually, water is blue. even without any sky in sight

but the sky is surely blue because there's a firmament of water up there...

:D

actually, water is blue. even without any sky in sight

but the sky is surely blue because there's a firmament of water up there...

live and learn, eh?

i always thought that that water in the sky thing was clouds which are seldom blue.

live and learn, eh?

i always thought that that water in the sky thing was clouds which are seldom blue.well, sometimes the clouds are yellow. that's when the angels had to p

:D

actually, water is blue. even without any sky in sight


Technically, it's not blue. It looks blue in large quantities because of the way light goes through it, but it's not actually blue.

Technically, it's not blue. It looks blue in large quantities because of the way light goes through it, but it's not actually blue.
If it looks like a blue thing, doesn't that, to either understanding of colour, make it a blue thing?

If it looks like a blue thing, doesn't that, to either understanding of colour, make it a blue thing?

Color is based on a qualitative aspect of an object. Water appearing blue is a result of the sheer volume, thus a quantitative aspect. It looks blue, but it doesn't have the property of blue.

It's sort of like red shift, really.

Color is based on a qualitative aspect of an object. Water appearing blue is a result of the sheer volume, thus a quantitative aspect. It looks blue, but it doesn't have the property of blue.

It's sort of like red shift, really.
Yes, but if the nature of something is in how it is perceived, then its apparant colour determines its colour "property". For instance, a glowing object in space moving towards us is, as far as we can tell, "a red light" until it becomes further defined by closer inspection. Since the idea of "Sky" only exists as a result of a conceptual border over our heads, and is not in and of itself a concrete object, it seems only common sense that it "is" whatever colour it appears.

If it looks like a blue thing, doesn't that, to either understanding of colour, make it a blue thing?

You can't say "water is blue" unless even a small amount is.
Water is no more blue than air, yet the sky is blue.
you can say "the sky is blue" because the sky, by definition, is a large amount, which is thus blue. but air is not blue

Color is based on a qualitative aspect of an object. Water appearing blue is a result of the sheer volume, thus a quantitative aspect. It looks blue, but it doesn't have the property of blue.

It's sort of like red shift, really.water is blue. it is a very light blue so that only in larger quantities its color is instantly recognizable.

Color is based on a qualitative aspect of an object. Water appearing blue is a result of the sheer volume, thus a quantitative aspect. It looks blue, but it doesn't have the property of blue.

It's sort of like red shift, really.

Err...what?

water is blue. it is a very light blue so that only in larger quantities its color is instantly recognizable.

Though it should be noted that the reason water is blue and the reason the sky is blue are completely different.

Water is blue due to the fact that water absorbs (relatively small) amounts of light in the wavelength band we associate with red (600-700nm or thereabouts) and reflects all other bands. We perceive it as a blue or blue-green color when there is a sufficient amount of water there.

The sky, on the other hand, appears blue most of the time due to Raleigh scattering, which results in a greater scattering of blue wavelength light than higher wavelengths. It's also the same reason why the sky appears red during sunrise and sunset.

Though it should be noted that the reason water is blue and the reason the sky is blue are completely different.

Water is blue due to the fact that water absorbs (relatively small) amounts of light in the wavelength band we associate with red (600-700nm or thereabouts) and reflects all other bands. We perceive it as a blue or blue-green color when there is a sufficient amount of water there.

The sky, on the other hand, appears blue most of the time due to Raleigh scattering, which results in a greater scattering of blue wavelength light than higher wavelengths. It's also the same reason why the sky appears red during sunrise and sunset.exactly, dear apple god :)

water is blue. it is a very light blue so that only in larger quantities its color is instantly recognizable.

Wow, this is a ridiculous argument. That being said...

If small quantities of water do not appear blue, they are not blue. They may release the photons with the wavelength that is equivalent to blue light, but color is qualitative and depends on the viewer.

Though it should be noted that the reason water is blue and the reason the sky is blue are completely different.

Water is blue due to the fact that water absorbs (relatively small) amounts of light in the wavelength band we associate with red (600-700nm or thereabouts) and reflects all other bands. We perceive it as a blue or blue-green color when there is a sufficient amount of water there.

The sky, on the other hand, appears blue most of the time due to Raleigh scattering, which results in a greater scattering of blue wavelength light than higher wavelengths. It's also the same reason why the sky appears red during sunrise and sunset.

Wow... sweet.
to think I'd gone all my life not knowing that... you learn something new everyday, they say.
thanks!

Wow, this is a ridiculous argument. That being said...

If small quantities of water do not appear blue, they are not blue. They may release the photons with the wavelength that is equivalent to blue light, but color is qualitative and depends on the viewer.color does not depend on the viewer. color depends on the wavelength. personal impression is irrelevant. just like with the existence of god.

color does not depend on the viewer. color depends on the wavelength.

No, I don't think that's what color means. "Color" is how our brain processes outside stimuli, whether it be electromagnetic radiation or something else. Hence objective spectometers, which can tell us the quantitative wavelength emitted.

No, I don't think that's what color means. "Color" is how our brain processes outside stimuli, whether it be electromagnetic radiation or something else. Hence objective spectometers, which can tell us the quantitative wavelength emitted.no. the property of an object to emit or refract certain wavelengths is called color. so grass is green and we do not just have the impression of green of it. how we perceive that color may differ individually, but that does not change the object's properties.

No, I don't think that's what color means. "Color" is how our brain processes outside stimuli, whether it be electromagnetic radiation or something else. Hence objective spectometers, which can tell us the quantitative wavelength emitted.

As far as I know, the scientific use of the term color relates to the wavelength of the light. I have long wondered how to tell if various brains see color the same way, but in this sense, I believe it would, indeed, be related to wavelength.
Basically, If I understand correctly, color is the wavelength, and how the brain processes the wavelength is a different matter

see above for a better phrasing of my point... I was posting when that was posted

Err...what?

I was half asleep when I wrote that. I have no idea what the fuck I meant, but it must have been incredibly stupid. Or an attempt to give an example of something that results in a change in color not relating from inherent properties of an object. But I lean towards the former, because I have a history of being an idiot when I'm tired.

no. the property of an object to emit or refract certain wavelengths is called color. so grass is green and we do not just have the impression of green of it. how we perceive that color may differ individually, but that does not change the object's properties.
But the notion of green-ness existed long before any understanding of light as electromagnetic radiation. Are you suggesting that people who said that grass was green in colour before Faraday were referring to a concept that did not yet exist?

If it looks like a blue thing, doesn't that, to either understanding of colour, make it a blue thing?

Nope. Technically the dominant colour in the sky is violet - our eyes are just much, much better at perceiving blue.

But the notion of green-ness existed long before any understanding of light as electromagnetic radiation. Are you suggesting that people who said that grass was green in colour before Faraday were referring to a concept that did not yet exist?

yes, and that people who based their lives around tides did so too, as we, who understand the idea significantly better, still don't understand how it works

I was half asleep when I wrote that. I have no idea what the fuck I meant, but it must have been incredibly stupid. Or an attempt to give an example of something that results in a change in color not relating from inherent properties of an object. But I lean towards the former, because I have a history of being an idiot when I'm tired.

Something redshifting doesn't directly have to do with the color red. It's the detectable change in wavelength of light from an object as it moves away from you or (in the case of blueshift) towards you. Something that was originally blue will redshift to be slightly less blue and more greenish, etc.

Something redshifting doesn't directly have to do with the color red. It's the detectable change in wavelength of light from an object as it moves away from you or (in the case of blueshift) towards you. Something that was originally blue will redshift to be slightly less blue and more greenish, etc.

So the color we see isn't the color that the object is.

But the notion of green-ness existed long before any understanding of light as electromagnetic radiation. Are you suggesting that people who said that grass was green in colour before Faraday were referring to a concept that did not yet exist?why? nature gave us a way to detect wavelengths: sight.

So the color we see isn't the color that the object is.

Exactly. And it has to do with the motion of the object. Think of it as a sort of doppler shift for light.

Hypocritical is irrelevent. We are discussing whether Ramses II ruled over a slaveholder Egypt. The evidence doesn't come out in favour of it. It doesn't matter if their neighbours were, or if they traded with slavers - the question is - were THEY slaveholders?

If they weren't, we either have to assume the Exodus account doesn't connect to Ramses II... or it's pure fiction.

Or it was written with a strong bias.

How fast do mountains "grow" according to you ? Can we see them rise up majestically ?

Hang on mountains do "grow" volcanic activity and shifting plates helps to increase them, but regardless TI was wrong and as I said the flood doesnt mean it covered the world as we know it today but the world as it was known by "Noah" which wasn't as big as it was today or of the "world" of the 10th century

So.. Little Red Riding Hood is not a metaphor for a porn story

Is it really?

You're not thinking of the African swallow are you? They're so big they can carry coconuts. ;)

Seriously though, I'm going to need a source before I believe that oriental mustard was the size of a tree.

Supposing two swallows carried it together?

Well if I ever find it, and I am not going to bother looking for it then I will show you until then we shall say it isn't, what about translation problems, or Chinese Whispers in effect, I am not saying this is what happened I am just throwing out reasonable explanations

Why couldn't he just be the type of king people wished they'd had?
I mean, beyond "assembled knights married a women and looked after his lands," which is basically standard for any king of the time, how can you know that he did anything? Especially if the story did evolve?

Then why else would he have remained in popular culture for hundreds of years if he hadn't, unlike the other kings of his time which have fallen out of peoples minds, and sit as an old research paper in the depths of a English university. And you may bsay because of the myth, but then why this King and why not any other?

Then why else would he have remained in popular culture for hundreds of years if he hadn't, unlike the other kings of his time which have fallen out of peoples minds, and sit as an old research paper in the depths of a English university. And you may bsay because of the myth, but then why this King and why not any other?

As said before...
Who's to say it was ONE king?
Who's to say this is actually based on the deeds of a king, rather than the wishes of the people?
And come on now... you don't seriously mean to tell me that word-of-mouth is consistent enough for all exciting people to have stories and for all stories to be about exciting people, do you?

As said before...
Who's to say it was ONE king?
Who's to say this is actually based on the deeds of a king, rather than the wishes of the people?
And come on now... you don't seriously mean to tell me that word-of-mouth is consistent enough for all exciting people to have stories and for all stories to be about exciting people, do you?

Yes it may be a collection of Kings.
Yes also possible.
No I do not, as I have said some elements may have been exaggerated, and the word of mouth stories would have included kings that came before and after Arthur.

So the color we see isn't the color that the object is.

Correct - and that even tends to be true if there is no redshift. Our eyes are far too "racist", noticing certain colours far better than others.

Hang on mountains do "grow" volcanic activity and shifting plates helps to increase them

Yes, but not dramatically in a few 1000 years. We would almost be able to see that with the naked eye if it did...

Is it really?

Most fairytales are. Little Red Riding hood is one of the more obvious ones ;)

Yes it may be a collection of Kings.
Yes also possible.
No I do not, as I have said some elements may have been exaggerated, and the word of mouth stories would have included kings that came before and after Arthur.

I rest my case.
Now I go to rest my eyes, too...
goodnight, and thank you

I rest my case.
Now I go to rest my eyes, too...
goodnight, and thank you

Which was what that Arthur may have been a king and he may not have, or what.

Yes, but not dramatically in a few 1000 years. We would almost be able to see that with the naked eye if it did...

Oh I know and I am not saying they do, in fact if you read my post wou would see that I did say TI was wrong about his claims.

Most fairytales are. Little Red Riding hood is one of the more obvious ones ;)

Really, got some proof so I can read up on it myself.

And pray tell, what other stories from the books of the Grimms are metaphors.

Really, got some proof so I can read up on it myself.

Hmm.. it was treated in highschool literary and artclass for me, together with other classic poems, paintings tales and so on with subtle meanings. Symbolism was important back then it seems. While I could try to find my old textbook, wikipedia could serve as a starting point for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_red_riding_hood#Interpretations

And pray tell, what other stories from the books of the Grimms are metaphors.
Note most Grimm stories far predate Grimm ;) But all the stories have moral lessons in them.

Hmm.. it was treated in highschool literary and artclass for me, together with other classic poems, paintings tales and so on with subtle meanings. Symbolism was important back then it seems. While I could try to find my old textbook, wikipedia could serve as a starting point for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_red_riding_hood#Interpretations

Cheers

Note most Grimm stories far predate Grimm ;) But all the stories have moral lessons in them.

I am not saying that they don't but they are known as Grimm stories or fairy tales, and some have even being changed around since their time, for example Cinderella originally had fur slippers, but error in translation or to make it more 'magical' it was changed to glass. And yes many of them do have some sort of moral behind them, I was just surprised to see the Little Red Riding Hood had something to do with porn, after reading the article that is just one of the many possible themes in the book, that has been presented by some post-modernist.

I was just surprised to see the Little Red Riding Hood had something to do with porn, after reading the article that is just one of the many possible themes in the book, that has been presented by some post-modernist.

To quote Perrault:

From this story one learns that children, especially young lasses, pretty, courteous and well-bred, do very wrong to listen to strangers, And it is not an unheard thing if the Wolf is thereby provided with his dinner. I say Wolf, for all wolves are not of the same sort; there is one kind with an amenable disposition — neither noisy, nor hateful, nor angry, but tame, obliging and gentle, following the young maids in the streets, even into their homes.Alas! Who does not know that these gentle wolves are of all such creatures the most dangerous!

Which to me indicactes that he at least thought of sex ;) Add the whole "ooh what big .. eeehm.. EYES...you have", the original part where Little Red undresses, the classical link between the colour red and carnal matters - and even the double meaning of "hood"... and well, you have porn :p

It isn't as bad as the traditional Dutch nursery rhyme of "Altijd is Kortjakje ziek" though. Or such classics as the Camera Obscura :)

Which was what that Arthur may have been a king and he may not have, or what.

Which was that nearly everything about him is "may" or "possibly"...
its nearly all conjecture

To quote Perrault:



Which to me indicactes that he at least thought of sex ;) Add the whole "ooh what big .. eeehm.. EYES...you have", the original part where Little Red undresses, the classical link between the colour red and carnal matters - and even the double meaning of "hood"... and well, you have porn :p

It isn't as bad as the traditional Dutch nursery rhyme of "Altijd is Kortjakje ziek" though. Or such classics as the Camera Obscura :)

Yes maybe he did in the form of child abuse, or maybe even a warning for what we would now call stranger danger. Food for thought at least anyway, and I suppose instead of giving children facts a clever story one in which they would remember and hopefully pick up the message and warning was used and maybe even more effectively, before such groups such as Disney corrupted the stories and made it much more tamer