[On the Biblical flood]
The mountains were lower, as we see mountains growing even today, but there is still not enough water on the earth. Here is my theory, and although it is weird, just listen and do the research yourself, as I don't have enough time to argue with each of you.
Mars previously had a different orbit than seen today. This is proven by Chinese manuscrips on constalations and the length of a year. Mars previously had an eliptical orbit, not unlike pluto's of today. Every two years, Mars would get close enough to the earth for the gravitational fields to interfere with one another. This would cause huge storms, tides, shifts in the earth, and electrical storms from the magnetic fields.
Mars has Ice on it's surface, could it have been stolen from the earth after the flood? I think so. Many of the phenomenon in the Bible are partially explained by this theory. The Chinese observed a few hundred years before Christ was born that Mars moved from one side of the earth, to the other, blotting out the sun and shifting both the earth's and it's own orbit into the cycle they are in now. They calculated the calendar a few years later after the cycle was constant, and were accurate within a few hours. We have the ancient Chinese manuscripts from the emperor to his astronomers, requesting an explanation for all the weird happenings and changes in the earth. This was their conclusion, and if you combine that with the fact that many of the ancient culcures worshipped Mars or "the stars" it makes sense because Mars would create so much destruction when it got close to the earth.
25 comments
"... as we see mountains growing even today,"
We do?
"Mars previously had a different orbit than seen today. This is proven by Chinese manuscrips on constalations and the length of a year."
Michael, you don't know what a constellation is, do you? And what, pray tell, does the length of the year (ours I assume) have to do with Mars?
"Mars previously had an eliptical orbit, not unlike pluto's of today."
Along with the rest of the planets. Imagine that.
"Every two years, Mars would get close enough to the earth for the gravitational fields to interfere with one another."
Michael is also unaware of just how weak gravity really is.
"This would cause huge storms, tides, shifts in the earth, and electrical storms from the magnetic fields."
Now you're just making things up, aren't you?
"Mars has Ice on it's surface, could it have been stolen from the earth after the flood? I think so."
Please, for the sake of the rest of us, don't think any more.
"Many of the phenomenon in the Bible are partially explained by this theory."
I must have missed those chapters. What would they be again?
"The Chinese observed a few hundred years before Christ was born that Mars moved from one side of the earth, to the other, blotting out the sun and shifting both the earth's and it's own orbit into the cycle they are in now."
I would guess that a major shift as you describe would leave probably somewhere around, oh say, nobody left alive to document anything.
"They calculated the calendar a few years later after the cycle was constant, and were accurate within a few hours. We have the ancient Chinese manuscripts from the emperor to his astronomers, requesting an explanation for all the weird happenings and changes in the earth. This was their conclusion, and if you combine that with the fact that many of the ancient culcures worshipped Mars or "the stars" it makes sense because Mars would create so much destruction when it got close to the earth."
This entire post reads like Velikovsky, only without the imagination.
@Talisman: We don't literally *see* mountains growing, of course, but in many regions ongoing uplift is measurable. For instance, Mt Everest is growing by a couple centimeters per year.
As for the rest of Michael's post, well, that's creative nonsense.
Is he just channeling/rewriting Velikovsky? Because I didn't see one true assertion in there.
EVERYthing Michael says in that post is patently absurd, including the alleged Chinese documentation. If he hasn't the time to "argue" with everyone else, he should at least provide his source, including the volumes, issue numbers, and dates of the tabloids in question.
EDIT: Fundie Science Award? Consider that he's also got this one going for him:
http://fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=10411
~David D.G.
Is there an actual, complete sentence in this that doesn't have an error in it? Well, OK, the 2nd sentence is probably true, but it is not presenting any "facts" related to his conjecture.
<<< "... as we see mountains growing even today,"
We do? >>>
Somewhere on the order of a few inches per year, but yes, many of them do grow. Nowhere near a rate high enough for there to be a chance of covering them with water a few thousand years ago, though.
As for the Mars stuff - so Mars was less than a million kilometers away at closest approach back then? That's the only way you'd have more gravitational effect on Earth than the moon has (they're equal at about 1.1 million km), and for the tidal effects to be equal you'd need Mars to be at least within 800,000 km - 100 times closer than the closest it gets in its current orbit.
Crosis #25583
<<< "... as we see mountains growing even today,"
We do? >>>
Somewhere on the order of a few inches per year, but yes, many of them do grow. Nowhere near a rate high enough for there to be a chance of covering them with water a few thousand years ago, though.
As for the Mars stuff - so Mars was less than a million kilometers away at closest approach back then? That's the only way you'd have more gravitational effect on Earth than the moon has (they're equal at about 1.1 million km), and for the tidal effects to be equal you'd need Mars to be at least within 800,000 km - 100 times closer than the closest it gets in its current orbit.
------------------------
Crosis, it's even worse than that. For Mars to have gravitationally stolen a significant portion of Earth's water, a "close approach" could not possibly have been sufficient, especially since the gravity of Mars is so much weaker than that of Earth; it would have to have SLAMMED INTO THE EARTH -- making Noah's ark a moot point, since it would have left both worlds as magma-covered, semimolten wrecks (if indeed both worlds could recover from such an impact). I also doubt that both planets would then be capable of establishing the current stable and mutually benign orbits that both worlds now have; one or the other of them would still be messed up, and they're not.
Such an impact with another, similar-sized planet (presumably now gone, except possibly for some of the asteroids) is believed to be what created our moon in the Earth's earliest days. That would have been quite a sight to see, if there had been anyone in space nearby to see it.
~David D.G.
*bops Michael on the head repeatedly with a science book*
DO NOT USE THE WORD "THEORY" WHEN YOU DO NOT MEAN "THEORY"!
A theory is a statement which fits with most, if not all available data and observations, and which we do not expect to change anytime soon. Which is why I agree that evolution is just a "theory" - it successfully explains pretty much every observation ever made about species changing and such.
I doubt "conjecture" would even work in this context. How about "crazy ramblings"?
@ Talisman:
"Please, for the sake of the rest of us, don't think any more."
Somehow, I don't think that's going to be a problem.
Alright everyone. I may be uninformed about a lot of things, but I'm aware that mountains *are* 'growing', so to speak. :) Thanks for the corrections anyway.
I felt Michael was saying that we literally *see* mountains growing. As in moving, rapdily, at some noticeable rate of speed. Whether he meant it that way or not I'm not sure, but that's how I took it. After all, everyone here knows how fundies think so I just assumed he meant it literally.
Square of the radius, dammit, SQUARE OF THE FUCKING RADIUS!
I begin my chant once more:
If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.
If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.
[continues until Michael (talk about your generic name (I like nested parentheses)) dies from total brain-rot (hopefully a short period of time (though it is directly proportional to the amount of time that Michael (still a generic name) spends reading the Wholly Babble (EDIT: or listening to Kent 'total idiot' Hovind)))]
"Mars has Ice on it's surface, could it have been stolen from the earth after the flood? I think so."
Here is where the lie is.
Yet more bullshit to support the bullshit flood legend.
"God is magic, he flooded the whole Earth and magically removed the flood waters" Not good enough for the new Christian nuts? No reason for Mars to be involved at all.
Are there soon to be Christian 'science' books flooding the market? Edited by the Conservapedia administration. You might as well claim the sun's Gods bugzapper
Here is my theory, and although it is weird, just listen and do the research yourself, as I don't have enough time to argue with each of you.
Way ahead of you dude, you lose.
Yeah and when the red planet came too close these thread-like things floated down through the atmosphere and burnt all our crops. These threads could only be destroyed by fire, so we bred these telepathic, fire-breathing dragons, see, and rode up to meet the threadfall.......oh, sorry, wrong fantasy....
'do the research yourself'
translation:
I'm a scientifically illetterate moron who will take anything he's told to support for granted, as long as it supports the existence of my imaginary buddy. I haven't done any research myself because I would risk losing my imaginary (and only) friend in favor of getting remotely in touch with reality. also, thinking would make my brain hurt.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.