Re: As people become Christians:its rude

john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:40:27 -0500

forum
---This method of reply is most inconsiderate. What is the main point
besides seeing how many times you can find a flaw in someones writing. You
must realize that most people dont have the time or patience to filter
through such nonsense. Respond with a MAIN point. This a concept that is
taught from 5th grade on up through college. Do you think people wont to
sort through this stuff?
Were not here to see how many sub-comments we can make. Think about what
you want to say, narrow it down, then type a reply. If others cant tell
what you are reffering to, then it's probably not worth saying. I dont
claim to be a good writer in the least... but lets take peoples comments
more serious.

At 06:12 AM 6/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:52 PM 6/12/97 -0700, Dario A Giraldo wrote:
>>For a breath of fresh air, here is an excerpt for the current edition (June
>>16, 1997) of US News & World Report magazine. The article begins with
>>having a caption in the cover with the words "God's Geophisics".
>>
>>Read it all ye old earthers/universers and Noah flood doubters. This
>>brother gets national exposure and has the academia credentials (EE from
>>Princeton and PhD in Geophisics from UCLA).
>
>Exposure is not indicative of truth. The alar scare on apples got lots of
>exposure also.
>
>>To top it off he works at Los
>>Alamos Nat'l Lab of the US Dept. of Energy. So he can't be label an
>>ignorant, unlearned and unskilled Christian as some here in this forum seem
>>to think of us who literally believe The Bible and see the world in black
>>and white.
>>
>
>I know John. He likes to ignore lots of geological data that contradicts
>his position. His acceptance of the global flood, like my former acceptance
>of the global flood is a matter of faith not evidence. If you would like,
>this week end I will critique his model of the flood.
>
>>Remembering than in latter days the redeemed will overcome the acussers of
>>the brethren by the word of their testimony (among other things).
>>
>>Page 56...
>>"Fifty three years old and 6 feet tall,
>>he grew up on a farm near Lubbock, Texas,
>>the eldest of four children. His father
>>was a professor of animal nutrition at
>>Texas Tech, and his family was, as he
>>tells it, essentially agnostic...
>>
>>But that changed as he moved deeper into
>>Christianity, which brought him to
>>the "conviction ... that indeed there had
>>been a major catastrophe in the Earth's
>>past that accounts for a large fraction of
>>the geological features we observe at the
>>Earth's surface today:'
>>
>> Baumgardner believes that around
>>6,000 years ago, when "God saw that the
>>wickedness of man was great in the Earth"
>>(Genesis 6:5), he caused an enormous
>>blob of hot mantle material to come rush-
>>ing up at incredible velocity through the
>>underwater midocean ridges. The materi-
>>al ballooned, displacing a tidal wave of sea
>>water over the continents.
>
>One fact that he ignores here is that measurements of mantle viscosity (the
>trouble a liquid has in flowing) show that the mantle has a viscosity of
>around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 poise (10^22).
>
>Thick honey has 10 poise
>water has .01 poise
>
>>From the knowlegde that honey has 1000 times the viscocity of water, and
the
>mantle has 10^21 times the viscosity of honey, you can see that it would be
>quite difficult for mantle material to come rushing up from the deep at a
>rapid speed. (see S.W. Carey, The Expanding Earth, Elsievier Publ. p. 97
>
>This, Baum-
>>gardner says, was the flood on which
>>Noah sailed, the water covering the moun-
>>tains and destroying "every living sub-
>>stance ... which was upon the face of the
>>ground, both man, and cattle:' Then, after
>>150 days (Genesis 7:24), the bubble re-
>>treated with equal speed into the Earth,
>>and the continents began re-emerging
>>above the water, sending the runoff back
>>to the oceans at around 100 miles an hour.
>
>Water has NEVER been observed to flow faster than 20 miles per hour.
>Consider this:
>
> "The mean velocity of rivers in flood varies from 4 to 10 feet
>per second. the mean veleocity attained in large rivers tends to
>be slightly higher than that in small rivers. There are, of
>course, many local situations where, owing to constrictions or
>rapids, velocity attains greater values. The figures cited above
>include a large majority of river channels in reaches that have no
>unusual features. For rivers of moderate size (2 to 100 square
>miles of drainage area), the flow at bankfull stage will ordinarily
>have a mean velocity on the order of 4 feet per second. If one had
>to make a guess without any measurement data, that figure would be
>a usable approximation.
> "the U.S. Geological Survey has analyzed individual velocity
>measurements made by current meter at the point of maximum velocity
>in river cross sections. The data were from routine measurements
>at 48 gaging stations on 27 large rivers throughout the country.
>A frequency table of 2,950 maximum values was compiled. Analysis
>showed the mean to be 4.84 feet per second, the medial 4.11, and
>the mode 2.76 feet per second. Data on the Mississippi river
>constituted 13 percent of the sample and had a median value of 8.0
>feet per second.
> "Less than 1 percent of the total measurements exceeded 13
>feet per second. The highest velocity known to have been recorded
>with a current meter by the U.S. Geological Survey was 22.4 feet
>per second in a rockbound section of the Potomac River at Chain
>Bridge near Washington, D.C., on May 14, 1932. Velocities of 30
>feet per second (20 miles per hour) have been reported but were not
>measured by current meter. No greater values are known."
>Luna B. Leopold, A View of the River, (London, England: Harvard
>University Press, 1994), p. 33
>
>
>>(A very fast river with a huge erosion ca-
>>pacity runs at only about 10 miles an
>>hour.) Baumgardner says that this runoff
>>would have been sufficient to create the
>>Grand Canyon and other massive geologic
>>features and to deposit the various sedi-
>>mentary layers in about one week.
>
>At water velocities that rapid, running OFF of the continent, the
>sedimentary material should NEVER have settled on top of the continental
>blocks. All the sedimentary material should be in the ocean basins. Yet what
>we find is that the maximum thickness of sediment is on top of the
>continents. Parts of Oklahoma have between 45 and 60 thousand feet of
>sediment. The ocean has only about 1500 feet of sediment. Baumgardners
>model fails to account for the sedimentary thicknesses.
>>
>> The science Baumgardner uses to ac-
>>count for these extraordinary happenings
>>is a sort of niche physics called runaway
>>subduction. A theory proposed in the
>>1960s under another name by a physicist
>>at General Electric, runaway subduction
>>posits that the potential energy in the cold,
>>heavy crust of the Earth is like the poten-
>>tial energy in a rock held above the
>>ground. Drop the rock, and its potential
>>energy is turned by gravity into kinetic en-
>>ergy, and into heat when it hits the
>>ground. As gravity pulls the rock, so it
>>pulls the gigantic, heavy plates of ocean
>>floor under the continents into the hot-
>>ter, lighter mantle, which is silicate rock..."
>>
>
>The viscosity problem is what killed runaway subduction theory.
>
>>On the other comments of atheists, long time ago I learned that the best
>>approach with them is to pray for them (that is if one truly cares) and let
>>God deal with them.
>>
>>Carl Sagan already met the God of Abraham he didn't believe in and the
>>Jesus he rejected. Just like every other human will. The only detail is
>>that finding this little bit of news after leaving earth is too late and it
>>is a situation that is irreversible. But that is a decision that each
>>human will make and will win or lose by the way he/she chooses.
>>
>>Too many souls are hungry and searching that are ready to receive Christ
>>to waste time with individuals whose only purpose is just like Elymas with
>>Paul. Besides The Lord sent His followers to be witness and to shake the
>>dust off their sandals when they aren't welcomed and go on. We aren't soul
>>winners or converters, that is the task of The Holy Spririt.
>
>And too many christians leave the faith because of proposals like
>Baumgardner's which can't account for the facts of science. See my post on
>why people become atheists.
>
>
>>One thing is to exchange ideas and another to go on and on and on with the
>>same concepts back and forth without any clearly defined goal or objective
>>? Will anybody really think than a fellow who stops believing in God
>>because Genesis doesn't rime with his understanding of how it all came into
>>existence will change because an extra e-mail ?
>>
>>My belief in God is based on a daily relationship with Him. The first 12
>>chapters of Genesis aren't a doctoral paper on creation but a brief
>>explanation of certain events. How it all began is a mystery and whether
>>you are labeled an evolutionist, Darwinist, OEC or YEC doen't bring you any
>>closer to solving the puzzle.
>>
>>As someone who was purchased by Christ and who no longer lives for me but
>>for Him, I must give account of my time and how it is being used.
>
>Dario, there are few here who do not have the daily relationship with Jesus
>that you speak of.
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>
>