[asa] Noah's ark

According to this creationist website, Noah's ark was 450 ft x 75 ft, and 45 ft. tall.
http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

Here's an article about the biggest ship to date:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_world_s_largest_cruise_ship;_ylt=ArJToIWoKW8T2ijWgHhc_oes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnczkyYTI2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDMwL2V1X3dvcmxkX3NfbGFyZ2VzdF9jcnVpc2Vfc2hpcARjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN3b3JsZHNsYXJnZXM-

1,200 feet long. Taller than 45 feet. This thing would make Noah's ark look tiny if side-by-side (this one is almost three times longer). Interesting comparisons. Interesting datapoint, to be analyzed totally differently by YEC's, OEC's, and TE's.

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:11 AM
To: George Murphy; David Clounch; Murray Hogg
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

I thought electroweak and strong were already unified? We are only on gravity right?

JOhn

________________________________
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>; Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Cc: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 12:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy
GUTs in the original sense would unify the electroweak & strong interactions but not gravity. A TOE would include gravitation.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: David Clounch<mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>
To: Murray Hogg<mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Cc: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

My layman's view on physics:

It is the theory there is an energy level (temperature) where the strong force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetic force are all one force. After cooling the force breaks down into individual forces. So immediately after the big bang there was one force and with expansion (inflation?) came cooling, the four forces, and then eventually particles.

My guess is this is an over-simplification because it is an english description of an idea that can only be expressed mathematically.

It is loosely related to TOE (Theory of Everything).

This all came up because I mentioned Grand Unifying Principle (GUP) which is the idea that state science standards committees in the USA put in curriculum standards. This idea says that evolution is a unifying concept that explains everything from the formation of particles at the big bang to cosmic evolution to chemical evolution (abiogenesis) to biological evolution to social evolution - therefore they want to teach our children that evolution explains everything. That "evolution" unifies all of science.

This is EXACTLY what Gregory is complaining about. So, Ted, if you don't believe in the grand unifying principle of evolution, well....... be aware that your government is being subverted to teach something different than what you believe. Once these standards are in place all teachers must teach that concept or lose their jobs.

 My opinion is the "grand unifying principle of evolution" is a fabrication. If that is true then we may possibly be seeing a consitutionally problematic situation arise in the state science standards committees. My question then becomes "whose side are the ASA members on, anyway?" If one doesn't believe the fabrication is true, then why support it rather than correct it? Do we want accurate science or not? Do we want materialism taught as science? Is the fabrication scientism? Do we politically support that? Every person must ask themselves that question.

Yes, materialists believe the fabrication is true. But do we? Gregory is right on target with this.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au<mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> wrote:
GUT = "Grand Unified Theory" - properly refers to theories in physics which unify the various forces into a single unified field. Used by analogy to refer to "meta-narrative"

Cameron Wybrow wrote:
This is the second time in the last couple of days that I've seen the abbreviation "GUT", without explanation. I've never seen this abbreviation before. Could people please refrain from using it, unless they are going to say what it means after the first usage?

Cameron.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 30 14:19:14 2009