If you loaded the last chapter on the day it was out, you may have missed an addition at the end. It ended with: "So, there are two ways to get the solar distance using a solar eclipse: 1) by finding where the umbra line meets the angular-size line; 2) by finding where the penumbra line meets the angular-size line. Comparing the one with the other, if they do not get the same solar distance, proves them to be the darkened goons that I accuse them of." This was a new realization because I hadn't focused on solar eclipses. In desperation, because NASA isn't coughing up all the data needed to find the solar distance with lunar eclipses, I turned to solar eclipses.One can figure out how large the penumbra should be if the sun is 93 million miles away. On a drawing, the penumbra line goes from the top edge of the sun to the bottom edge of the moon, a drop-distance of the solar radius (695,991 kilometers) plus the moon diameter (2,160) = 698,151 kilometers. The moon at the time was about 359,750 kilometers from earth core (353,379 from the earth's surface), meaning that the sun at 93 million away was 149.67 million kilometers - 359,750 = 149,310,000 kilometers from the moon...meaning that the penumbra line dropped 698,151 kilometers per 149,310,000 kilometers across. With those numbers in the edge-a and edge-b box, the angle is found as 0.2679 degree.
At an angle of 698,151 kilometers of drop per 149,310,000 across, it's .00467585 kilometers of drop per 1 mile across, wherefore the line would drop .00467585 x (353,379 - 1,738) = 1,644 kilometers more by the time it reaches earth's surface. As this line starts at the bottom edge of the moon and ends up 1,644 kilometers lower, the radius of the penumbra would be the sum of 1,644 and 1,728, or 3,382 kilometers. As this makes the penumbra diameter 6,764 kilometers, more than half the earth's diameter. NASA's eclipse pages do not give the size of the lunar penumbra, which happens to mean that we can't use one to draw a line to the sun, nor to check NASA's other data.
The penumbra in the satellite photo (below) isn't round, and I claim to know why. It's about twice as long in the vertical direction as in the horizontal direction. In this way, the goons can claim that the umbra is wider or less wide, whatever their need for discussing it with anyone raising particular questions. I think that almost everyone would argue that a penumbra should be round, not the long oval that NASA is showing it as. NASA needs to explain this unexpected shape.
If the shadow is made larger than 155 kilometers, the penumbra gets smaller. The wider the sun, the smaller the umbra, and the larger the penumbra. While I can't tell you the solar distance and size apart from knowing the real umbra size, I can test anyone's numbers who claims a solar and umbra size. Instead of repeating an entire paragraph from the last chapter, I'll just give this: "As we saw, Fred gives .268347 degree as the solar diameter at mid-eclipse. We can now draw two lines, one at that angle, and the other at .269234 degree [the latter is not permitted to be greater than the former or they will never meet]...We now need to subtract .004699 from .00468357, but the answer is less than zero, an impossibility. To put it another way, the lunar eclipse line at .004699 degree spreads more than the solar-size line at .00468357 degree so that the two lines will never meet, neither at the sun where they are required to meet, nor anywhere...If the full core-to-core distance is used (instead of 353,379), the eclipse line comes out at a smaller angle than the solar-size line, but the two lines meet at just 1.145 million miles away from earth." Big problem there, Fred, and you need to come clean on this. You may have thought that no one would do this math to check up on your work.
I was at the end of my rope, this week, trying to find the solar distance...because the Fred's of the world have failed us all. They intend to lie to us until the end of time. Late in the week, I realized that one can test Fred's penumbra and umbra size by the times that he has for P1 to P4 and U1 to U4, which he defines as four "Contacts of Penumbra" and four "Contacts of Umbra." This cannot mean anything but the contact of the shadow on opposite sides of the earth where the shadow comes counterclockwise (see drawing) across it. One should have the drawing in Figure 2-1 at hand to follow this, and so put it on a separate browser:
http://www.eclipse.aaq.org.au/index.php/eclipse-information/what-are-eclipsesIn Figure 2-1, ignore the shown shape of the lunar orbit, and imagine it as a perfect circle on the page (around the earth circle, of course); the sun and earth circle remain the same in such a situation. The lunar shadow comes sailing through space and contacts the top of the earth circle. A small time later, the other side of the shadow contacts the same side of the earth circle. Fred has 00:15:57.3 (almost 12:16 am) as the time for U1, and 17:27.9 for U2, a difference of about one and a half minutes, or 92.6 seconds to be exact. This means that, according to dishonest Fred, the bottom (line) of the umbra contacted the top of the earth 92.6 seconds before the top line of the umbra contacted the same edge of the earth. We could test this if only dishonest Fred would put the lunar velocity on his eclipse pages. He doesn't because lunar velocities expose his eclipse-page dishonesty.
As this eclipse was a fraction more than one day after the moon was at perigee on March 10, the moon was going only a little slower than its fastest-ever velocity. NASA's fastest velocity figure (on its moon fact sheet) is 1.076 kilometers per second. We therefore multiply that figure by 92.6 seconds to find how far the moon could have traveled its absolute maximum, between U1 and U2, and this gives the maximum size of the umbra width. The answer is 99.64 kilometers. As we are to think that the moon was going more like 1.073 km/hr (2,400 mi/hr) at the time, the umbra width changes only to about 99.36 kilometers.
The U1 and U2 contacts with earth are upon a vertical line through the center of the earth circle. That is, as the bottom of the umbra contacts the top of the earth, it has not to do with the moon-facing edge of the planet, but is one earth radius away from it...meaning that the umbra will be a little wider at the moon-side surface (this is where Fred measures it). How much more? We need to find the line's angle to discover the answer. If there is nothing wrong with any of this, it's a way to discover the umbra width and therefore the true distance of the sun, but I suspect that Fred is giving us the U1 and U2 times according to a computer program, not according to hands-on work that aims to get the reality.
The good news is that we know the lunar distance (according to astronomers, anyway) about one day later at perigee, and that was 359,508 kilometers (according to this page when March 10, 2016 is looked up). According to my work in lunar distances one day after apogee, the moon is only about 125 miles closer to earth 24 hours after apogee, wherefore, the moon at the solar eclipse (30 hours before perigee) should have been about 156 miles = 250 kilometers further from earth than at the March 10 perigee. It makes the moon about 359,758 kilometers from earth (they measure this from lunar core to earth core).
To get this, imagine a vertical line through the center of the earth circle, with the top umbra line crossing the vertical line half of 99.36, or 49.68 kilometers, above the earth's core. To find the angle of this umbra line as it goes across to the top edge of the moon, we need to feed 359758 (no comma) into the edge-b box, with the moon radius (1,738.1) minus 49.68 = 1688.42 in the edge-a box because the line will rise/spread that much in reaching the moon's edge. When we feed the two numbers, the angle is said to be .2689 degree. It's impossible because this angle is greater than the angular-size line (.268347 degree), meaning that the two lines will never meet (it is necessary that they meet at the edge of the sun).
As you can understand that we cannot have a line larger than .268347, try putting the solar radius (432469 miles) into the edge-a box with 92,000,000 miles in the edge-b box, to find .2693 as the angle. The sun was about 92 million miles from earth at this eclipse.
When we put .2689 in angle-A and the earth radius, 6,371.4 kilometers, in edge-b, we find 29.9 in edge-a, meaning that the umbra radius works out to 49.68 + 29.9 = 79.58, as compared to Fred's 77.55 (see next chapter for elaboration on this method). It's not much of a difference between what I would consider the more-correct velocity and the one that we would get using his numbers. It means that a small change in the umbra diameter is a big deal when seeking the true distance to the sun.
I realize that the earth is simultaneously moving in its orbit, but as the moon orbits the sun with the earth, the only thing that matters for this discussion is the moon's motion. As the moon cuts directly between the sun and earth (it's always the case in a solar eclipse), the velocity of the moon-shadow lines are the same as the moon's velocity.
You can see, while studying Figure 2-1, that the moon travels exactly half an earth diameter from midway between U1 and U2 to mid-eclipse. That is, the middle of the shadow contacts the top of the earth circle midway between the 92.6 seconds, at 00:16:43.6 am, and is at mid-eclipse when the middle of the umbra is halfway across the earth. At the top of the eclipse page, Fred has "Greatest Eclipse" at 01:58.19.5, and so we can easily figure that the moon shadow traveled 1 earth radius (3,959 miles = 6,371.4 kilometers) between 00:16:43.6 and 01:58:19.5 = 1 hour, 41 minutes, 36 seconds = 1.69333 hours = 6,096 seconds. Fred should have nothing to say if we now calculate the lunar velocity like so: 3,959 / 1.693333 = 2,338 mi/hr = 3,762.65 km/hr = 1.04518 km/sec. By this method, the moon's velocity is only 2,338 mi/hr, though one expects it to be nearly 2,400 mi/hr one day before perigee. It tells me that the distance between the top and bottom umbra line should be greater than 155.1 kilometers (so long as we stick to 92.6 seconds).
While it may be true that the umbra does not move exactly with the velocity of the moon, on such a grand scale as the solar system, I think the velocities of the two are pretty much in tune when the moon is directly between the sun and earth. In essence, the circular orbit of the moon is practically a straight line over 1.69 hours.
We can now re-do the U1 to U2 math using the faulty velocity: 1.04518 x 92.6 = 96.784 kilometers for the umbra width (at the interior of the earth, not on the moon-side surface). We now re-do the above, 49.68 + 29.9 = 79.58, as 96.784/2 + 29.9 = 78.29, which is closer to his 77.55 but not yet there. To get there, we need a slower velocity yet, which gets even more unreal. Fred has some explaining and correcting to do.
Let's examine the span from middle of U1 and U2 to the middle of U3 (3:36:45.1) and U4 (3:38:20.7), for this definitely amounts to 1 earth diameter. The middle of U1 and U2 is 00:16:43.6, and the middle of U3 and U4 is 03:37:32.8. The total between them being, 3 hours, 20 minutes, 49.2 seconds = 3.347 hours = 12,049 seconds. The velocity has changed as compared to the 2,338 mi/hr above, as though the umbra was moving faster in crossing the second earth radius. The velocity now works out to be 7918 / 3.347 = 2,365.7 mi/hr (= 1.05755 km/sec) when crossing the full stretch of one earth diameter.
The moon would travel 1.05755 x 12,049 = 12,742.487 kilometers using Fred's numbers, while one earth diameter is said to be 12,742.8 kilometers. It seems bang-on of Fred, but something is wrong because the velocity is not fast enough for one day before perigee.
The way to go about getting the more-correct picture is to use the more-correct velocity of 2,400 mi/her = 3,862.4256 km/hr = 1.07285 km/sec., where the more-correct time span works out to 12,743 / 1.07285 = 11,878 seconds (a difference of 171 seconds as compared to what Fred has). His 92.6 seconds between U1 and U2 likewise needs to be shortened, we may assume. To correct the 92.6 seconds, start with 12,049 / 11,878 = 1.0144, and then 92.6 / 1.0144 = 91.285. The distance, at a velocity of 1.07285 km/hr over 91.285 seconds is 97.94 kilometers, as compared to Fred's 96.78. Are we splitting hairs?
Repeat: "To find the angle of [Fred's] umbra line as it goes across to the top edge of the moon, we need to feed 359758 (no comma) into the edge-b box, with the moon radius (1,738.1) minus 49.68 = 1688.42 in the edge-a box...the angle is said to be .2689 degree." Only now, edge-a gets 1,738.1 - 97.94/2 = 1,689.13, and the angle thereby comes out as .269, even worse for reality than .2689. It apparently means that the velocity is still wrong, yet I'm working off of "more-correct" according to NASA's fastest velocity. See the next chapter to see my attempt to get the correct velocity according to the data in this eclipse.
Let's go to a solar eclipse of September 22, 2006. It's an annular eclipse, meaning that the sun shows larger than the moon, meaning also that the moon's umbra does not reach the earth. It can be seen above that I have my interpretation of U1 to U4 correct, for all the math works, yet Fred gives contacts for U1, U2, U3 and U4 for this annular eclipse. I'm a rookie at this topic, but I do know enough to ask: how can there be contacts if the umbra does not reach the earth??? "Annular Solar Eclipses: occur when a region on the Earth's surface is in line with the umbra, but the distances are such that the tip of the umbra does not reach the Earth's surface." Moreover, Fred gives an umbral path of 261 kilometers wide on the earth, and lest we think it's an error, he gives a gamma = umbra tip of .4062 earth radii past the core of the earth. I don't understand.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/image1/SE2006Sep22-Fig5.GIFAs you can see, he has U1 at 09:48:31.8 am, and U2 at 09:54:33.1, a span of almost 6 minutes. Now I'm really confused. There is no way that contact can be from the very bottom and top of the earth circle, for that would get a span of only 1.5 - 2 minutes. I'm baffled. Where does the umbra touch the earth, even though it's not supposed to at all, for U1 and U2? On a NASA page having definitions, "central eclipse" is defined like so: "A solar eclipse in which the central axis [tip] of the Moon's shadow cone traverses Earth thereby producing a central line in the eclipse track. The umbra or antumbra falls entirely upon Earth so the ground track has both a northern and southern limit. Central solar eclipses can be either total, annular or hybrid." But everyone else is defining an annular eclipse as one where the tip does not touch the earth. Logic dictates that, if one can see a ring of sun around the moon, there will be no umbra on the earth surface at all. Nor can there be any spot on earth where the moon is larger than the sun if it's smaller to anyone else.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/SEglossary.htmlI now find myself confused on both the matter of Fred's gamma figure(s), and the existence of umbra contacts for annular eclipses. To become good at working with umbra lines, it's good if we can understand these things correctly. We can then test NASA's figures too.
Whoever Has Ears, Let Them Hear
There are many examples in biology of a Creator's handiwork. Evidence of a Creator shows up everywhere, in the most-basic of arguments. As the principle of evolution has no guiding person, no brain, no eyes, no guidance, no policy, no agenda, no advisors, no nothing, it doesn't know that ear flaps need to be placed beside the ear. How did rabbits, dogs and other mammals get ear flaps smack at the ears instead of on their shoulders, legs or stomachs? How did evolution know that an ear flap aids the animal in hearing? Evolution doesn't know what sound is, let alone that ear flaps capture it, and send it down the ear tunnel, better. It looks like ear flaps were designed by Someone. And this is all the evidence you need to know that a God created us all, for if He created ear flaps, he also created ears, and the entire mammal too. And if he designed mammals, he also created the rest of Creation. This is simplicity itself. Count on it.
If your heart has no animosity toward God, you will listen to what I'm saying, but evolutionists are angry with God, hateful toward Him. You have the choice of joining them with these sentiments. God wants to know what side you are on. Evolutionists will not listen until, perhaps, something drastic takes place in their lives to make them fear God. It's happened to the "best" of them, broken down and teary-eyed, confessing sins to God, and making the appropriate changes in their thinking. The question after that: will they remain loyal to God, or return to their old ways? Does the Church have a revolving door with as many leaving as are coming in? Has the numbers of serious Christians increased or decreased in the past 40 years?
The gift of God is life. We are. The curse of God includes hard work in life. By the sweat of your brow you will live. The gift was marred, and we must endure it. You can cry about it all you want, but the curse will not be lifted. It might be made lighter for you when you love God, but it won't be lifted. Those who turn from hate to love do so while the curses are all around. The worst part of it is in the weeds of humanity, the evolutionists and their ilk. Rampant murder, rape, all because men are made to disbelieve in a Creator.
Men who seek riches unendingly consequently make the rest poorer. Money makes life better and easier, who can deny it, but Jesus warns us not to put stake in an easy, luxurious life. The purpose of life was not to be utterly comfortable, with anything lovely being only as far as your wallet. Hardship makes for a better person, but only God wants the hardship, because we certainly don't. For us, paradise has no hardships. The apostle Paul even called it, The Rest. It's the time when toiling ends. But if the curse is lifted then, what is wrong with a littler paradise in this life? Well, the long and the short of it is that work makes us better people. A little pain makes us grow bigger, deeper.
The curse of the human weeds makes life worse than working to earn our roof and food. The dog-eat-dog mentality is a direct out-cropping from the curse of God. I'm not saying that God intended dog-eat-dog, for Jesus came to teach how we should not behave that way. Be generous and considerate as we endure the curse with our fellow man. Dog-eat-dog was produced by the unGodly, and even evolutionism likes to speak on survival of the fittest. It is not necessary for the world to be a "rat race." It is not necessary to conduct your life as though only you matters. You don't need to march to work, straight ahead, without turning aside to others, each and every day. It's better to say something to someone on a bus or subway than to sit like a stone saying nothing, looking straight ahead. That's not the society that God desires. Unfortunately, ever since evolutionists won the world from Christians, it's now Christians who remain a little aloof from society. The wicked have turned things on their heads, and society becomes progressively more wicked.
Dog-eat-dog is more like rat takes all. If the rat could, he would take it all. With so many rats, good people who only want enough to get by are left with anxieties. Most people never have enough money / equity for security because the rats always assure that people pay high for their needs. When wives started to work along with men as a rule, the rats increased prices of all our needs so that the second income became of little value, and in the meantime most one-income families suffered. If children stayed home until they were 40 years old, the rats would increase prices for all our needs (especially housing) yet again until there was no longer any value in our saving money. If we save money, the rats will take it from us in high prices for our needs. The average person will never make enough because it's precisely the situation wherein the rats take advantage. The only way to "get ahead" is to become a rat yourself. For example, you can open a business and charge the high prices that others do. As a small-business owner, you will be forced to charge high prices because the rats won't sell you your stock for anything but the highest prices they can get. The rats at the highest levels determine pricing for all. There is no one acting with generosity at the highest levels. Instead, they are all in a race to see who gets the most respect for being amongst the fattest-500 rats.
A lot of us may have asked why God created animals eating other animals. In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is accurate in many respects (sometimes its just luck). The strongest not only survive more likely, but also rule. But doesn't humanity stop to say, self, should I be like the animals? The evolutionists says, yes, we should be like the animals because it's just the way of life; we are animals, after all. Thus, evolutionists have fomented the dog-eat dog mentality. This has been around long before evolutionists, but it doesn't mean that evolutionists aren't guilty too. Jesus came to say that we don't need to live for self only. We don't need to behave like animals. We can turn aside and help the next guy, and be richer for it. God helps those who help others, but evolutionists favor "God helps those who help themselves." Not if they don't help others too.
So, if you are looking for God but live marching straight ahead, without turning aside to be with others, I don't think God will show up much in your life. It's fine to be a nice person to anyone, even if they happen to be an evolutionist rat. That's what Jesus meant by love your enemy. Be good to those who persecute you because your nature has been made good; you can act in no other way. Well, the truth is, I can act in the other way. I can become angry with the rats, and despise them too, because it's not only me that they seek to ruin, but everyone else, including my direct family members. Is this nothing to be concerned about? It is, of course, but in my anger, I do them no harm. Though I wish them gone from the world, I do not lay a hand on them, even if I could get away with it. Everything they do to ruin the world is in God's hands. Do not worry, but put yourself in His protection. The carnivores will not steal your life away when you are under God's wings.
If ear flaps are able to convince you that God exists, then who is the real God? Well, just think about it. You don't know why He has decided to remain invisible, but you accept and respect that decision. Chances are, He does connect with people. But how can we know for sure? How do we know that he can hear any person at any time? Isn't that too much even for the Creator of the universe? But what if he created a medium between every person's mind and himself by which he can hear even our thoughts? Sound waves carry a lot further than our ears can detect them; why not though waves? Besides, can't the Spirit of God be all around us, filling every space in Creation? How far is He from our thought waves? Can't he be in our very ear tunnels too? Yes, okay, but how can we know that He cares for us? What if He just doesn't?
I can understand why he wouldn't care about us, if we don't care about him. It's the dog-eat-dog mentality that turns even our thoughts against God. Me first, God last. But if we have a rich root, firmly planted in concern for God, then we will discover God in our lives, in our very thoughts. He will help our minds to think correctly, and with super-human ability, if only we are concerned about Him. It's the meaning of loving God. Love and concern is the same thing. What should we be concerned about? God has it all, and we have little. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Well, God doesn't really have it all, because there are things He wants, and that's us loving Him. He does not yet have a world filled with people who love Him. Enemies still fill the planet. God is not at all the richest He can be in this regard, and it's probably the thing that matters to him most.
I have found that God operates through us best when we exercise faith. I personally see this as a tricky thing. If I happen to be in a dangerous situation, faith gets me through safely, but if I put myself in a dangerous situation trusting God, I happen to feel that this is testing God. Therefore, my faith wanes if I were to go ahead and initiate a dangerous situation on my own. I do not believe that we can do anything when exercising faith. I believe that, providing it's God's will, faith is a boon to accomplishment. Do anything that Jesus would, and God is right there. Why can't this be the reality? It doesn't necessarily mean that one will succeed, for Jesus failed to succeed, with certain people.
Why do people not love God? Isn't he lovable? Not surprisingly, it's because they love others things more than they love God. But why? First of all, they have no respect for the concept that we SHOULD honor God just because he made us. That's the first clue that they are thinking wrongly. Secondly, God refuses to be our personal genies granting us our every request for our own pleasures. God would feel used. There are many pleasures that God gives us in a wrap with everyday life itself. We get to take pleasure in food, bright sunny days, a warm bath, a vast creation, open spaces, greenery, the miracle of being alive, sex (his creation), and even rest or sleep can be pleasurable. There is pleasure in accomplishing things through work, and moreover we can find pleasure in being together. We have each other, and I'm sure I missed a few things. All that God wants is to be honored / respected for these basic things, and he promises more for those who love him. But evolutionists are unhappy about it all. Lousy scums. What is it that they would like if not God in their lives? Only a scum would know. You will need to ask a scum.
Chances are, they love to make God angry, or to do the very things that makes him cross. They like to lie, for example, and think highly of themselves. They may hope to score in adultery, or hope to be rich with money. And they hope to engineer an efficient society all without God in it so that they can say God is not needed. They may think of themselves as valiant for rowing against God, and seeking to "progress" to something better than what he offers. In fact, they are right-now seeking to change foods / plants / animals for the better, and have their sights on changing the human brain to make it "better." All that God offers is not good enough for a scum, and he points out all of God's curses in order to portray him as mean and ugly. He makes God angry, and when God responds with punishment, the scum says that God is cruel for punishing. If someone steps on a plane and dies in a plane accident, God is cruel for not saving the plane. Unless God makes everything go perfectly right and good for the unGodly world that the scum hopes to engineer, God is labeled the scum. Instead of viewing punishment as a signal for the need of human correction, the evolutionist becomes more rebellious. His anger toward God drives him. He wants everyone to be angry or unsatisfied with God.
Before evolution, the scums devised evolution through their anger / displeasure toward God. Ever since, more and more scums all got together to develop evolution to a full "science." That is a lot of blind hatred. Poor zealots, they don't stand a chance. They have given their souls over to eternal punishment.
It's a nice day today, praise God for nice days. I've just had an herbal tea, and am feeling hungry, praise God for the pleasure of tea and food. The temperature in my house is good, praise God for the wood that makes the house stand for more than 100 years. It's strewn throughout the endless forests of the world, ready building material at virtually our fingertips...but the scums have made wood expensive in their selfish society. God's dirt under my house has now become more expensive than all of its building materials combined. Society has become a wonderful playground for the sellers becoming rich on high prices.
It will soon get a little cold, praise God for firewood, but scums would complain that wood isn't as full of energy as they would like. Plus, houses made of wood can burn down, therefore God have done better for providing building material. He could have made houses safer to live in. The scum could complain that God could have made smoke non-toxic. There is a complaint everywhere, and the scum thinks he can do better. But there is blessing even in the curses. Take weeds, for example, the curse of Eden. Weeds are what have made the rich soils over the centuries. Virtually everywhere one goes, there is a layer of rich soil thanks to the death and rot of prolific weeds. Praise God for the miracle of soil, and one can take pleasure in growing a garden. But why only one garden? Because, the scums have engineered society so that most everyone needs to go to work for such time periods that there is not enough time for many to maintain even one garden. Moreover, the scums, in their greed, have arranged backyards to be too small...because the price of the dirt has sky-rocketed.
When women started to work, the married couple had more money, wherefore they could afford to pay more for a house. Wonderful. But the real-estate hawks saw this and raised the price of houses, wherefore the wife's income went largely to the real-estate companies. She should have stayed home, because most of her work goes to real-estate people over a span of 20 to 25 years just to cover the quadrupling of house prices. And she now has a very small backyard for her kids and dog. It's not exactly the American dream. Wherever there is extra money, the scums are right there with a plot to take it away. This is the world of the evolutionist, because they are the ones who create scums from the time that children enter primary school. They are the ones who engineer the world as we find it today.
There is not much food growing wild. Yes, there are some berries and nuts, and even maple syrup, that one can access from the wild forest, but, for the most part, God did not create foods in abundance in nature. In a paradise, we wouldn't need to go to work for someone else; we could eat from our own plot of ground, build a house from our own plot (one or two years, for starters, instead of 15 to 25 years paying the mortgage), keep warm from our own plot, and moreover we would not need the obscene cities. We would be spread throughout the geography in less density, wonderful. But the scums have crammed us into cities and towns with the smallest plots of ground in order to increase their income through property taxes. And as the plots of ground get smaller, they go up in price. Men are making a lot of money on God's free gift of dirt and trees. As the dirt goes up in price, so does wood...because wood grows on more-expensive dirt.
I understand that, eventually, as the population of the world grows to certain heights, we can't all burn wood for heat, or all the forests would become tree stumps. So, praise God for natural gas and oil. This is a blessing from the curse of Noah's Flood. The undersea volcanoes exploded, the waters covered the earth and dropped their sediments (from the exploding volcanoes) over the forests, and thus the creation of "fossil fuels." But the evolutionists are lying. The oil and gas is not the result of fossils, but of forests buried almost-instantly in the Flood. Instead of fossil fuel, oil would be better called tree or vegetable juice.
The Flood produced an enormous amount of limestone = cement by which people could build houses. In fact, cement is still cheap today due to its abundance. Out of the curse, some important blessings. God was watching out for the future generations, acting as the Provider, but the scum sees nothing good in this.
Are the rivers and lakes polluted due to high population? Praise God for making evaporated waters leave the toxins and pollutants behind. The rain comes down pure and fresh by his design. He was watching out for us, even though we turn out to be evil, but the scum has no thanks to offer him. For him, a brainless evolution created the rain cycles, and the ability of dirt to grow the endless number of different plants. But the dirt can't do it alone; plants need something in the sun. But to the scums, it was all a fluke chance that sun, dirt and water all worked together to provide plants. But more than this is needed, for dirt in itself needs oxygen, and it just happens to be in the air. There is not much oxygen, as compared to nitrogen, but there is just enough to make plants grow
In the meantime, oxygen acts as the fuel for our bodies. Nothing burns without it. There is no fuel that doesn't use oxygen. Praise God for hot water that kills all the bacteria. Praise God for a nice, warm tea. Oil is not the fuel alone; and heat is just as much the result of oxygen's loss of electrons as the oil's loss. Carbon is not the fuel alone. Given sufficient oxygen, carbon does not produce toxic smoke. Instead, it produces carbon-dioxide, the food of all plants. Yes, even the burning of wood becomes food for something. One can argue that, before the Flood, there was more oxygen, for as most of the world's lime is predicted to have had a source in the earth's interior during the Flood, much of the world's oxygen likely went into making lime, for it's chemical name is calcium oxide. Plants and animals together would have been stronger and healthier with more oxygen in the air, and burning wood would have had a clean smoke (not to mention that chickens could fly).
I just know that evolutionists can take it when I call them goons and scums, for they are the ones who say that Christianity is a cancer upon the earth. The theory of evolution is itself a form of hate speech, and Christians should stand up for God against these fiends.
There are not enough natural sources for lime to explain the abundance of lime in the earth, wherefore one predicts that calcium issued forth from the planet's interior Flood event. The other explanation, which says that limestone formed over millions of years, does not work because limestone particles do not release their cementing agent. The formation of limestone needs a cementing agent, wherefore limestone cannot be recycled to form more limestone, which is exactly the lie that evolutionists feed our children. They say that rain and wind erode limestone, bring it in small particles to the ocean (via rivers) to become limestone again in the seas. The truth is, limestone formed only once during the Flood. It either had its oxygen content to begin with from the planet's interior, or it acquired oxygen from the seas and atmosphere.
A reader forwarded me the website (Center for Scientific Creation) of a fellow Creationist who attempts to explain the Flood as I do, with the eruption of the earth's crust from pressures within the planetary magma. he writes: "As quartz and certain other minerals dissolved, this hot, high-pressure water increasingly contained the ingredients that would later produce limestone (CaCO3), salt (NaCl), other forms of quartz (SiO2)." He has the same idea that I do, that, before the Flood, there was vast water in cavities beneath the earth's seas. He bases his theory on "tidal pumping," which creates sufficient frictional heat to force water through the solid crust and onto the earth. It's safer to merely say that the earth was heated. I don't know the way in which it was heated, but the long and the short of it is that heat is needed to raise the waters up onto the land. It's not necessary to be dogmatic in the particular way that the heat was formed. Nor should we be seeking a purely natural explanation because God created the heat for the task at hand.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.htmlHe speaks of SCW, or super-critical water under the pressure of heavy rock. He says: "SCW consists of microscopic liquid droplets dispersed within very dense water vapor." He thereby implies that there is space above the water for vapors to form. I agree that there should be cavities filled with some water and some space. Every time that heated magma is pushed onto the earth's surface, a cavity remains behind in the crust (or beneath it) after the heat subsides. It is predictable that water will find a path to the cavity, but as the latter is expected to be filled with rock gases, the water entering, and taking up room thereby, will increase the gas pressure until water can no longer enter (when the pressure in the cavity equals the pressure of water entering).
The writer, Walt Brown, makes the scenario in which the water in cavities started to flow through a rupture in the earth's crust, and that the decrease in water pressure thereby was accompanied with the increase in pressure from the super-critical water vapor, causing the water to have more punch in getting through the rupture. I don't know. The man on the street can't prove such a thing. It's probably better not to have such a theory. It's much easier to understand that internal heat forces water to go out the cavities in the way the water entered. Mr. Brown is looking for a mechanism that broke the crust into its so-called tectonic plates, and this is it.
As he describes it, there are water droplets in the space above the water liquid, and it is these droplets that form the driving force to spew waters into the sea (above sea floors) and above continents. The Achilles heel of his theory is, in my opinion, where he sees the decrease in liquid-water pressure increasing the vapor pressure. This is the basis of his theory, and I don't see it as viable. I'm not a physicist, but I do know that vapor cannot increase in pressure just because the liquid water beneath it decreases in pressure. The only way to change the vapor pressure is to either remove or add liquid water so as to change the volume of the space in which the vapor exists. In his theory, the water has found an escape route from the cavity, wherefore, even if the pressure in the vapor did momentarily increase, the loss of liquid water through the rupture acts to decrease the pressure.
Besides, he has droplets of water in the vapor that cannot exist, because water at critical temperature is defined as water molecules that refuse to bond as liquid (i.e. no liquid droplets can for at such temperatures). The way Mr. Brown has this worked out, the decrease in water pressure necessarily causes cooling within the vapor, from the droplets evaporating. The latter is defined as some water molecules leaving the droplets, but when this takes place, the molecules absorb heat from their surroundings, making the vapor cooler, and thus decreasing the vapor pressure. A gas relieved of heat always goes down in pressure. He loses me where he speaks on this cooling, for I cannot see how it increases the vapor pressure.
He says: "This explains how the escaping supercritical liquid transferred its energy into supercritical vapor. How did the vapor lose its energy and cool? Rapid expansion. A remarkable characteristic of supercritical fluids is that a small decrease in pressure produces a gigantic increase in volume—and cooling." Not one item in that sentence makes sense to me. First of all, waters escaping the cavity work to reduce vapor pressure (which cools it,yes), and the result is heat energy transferred from the liquid into the vapor, but the transfer can go on only as long as the vapor is cooler than the water. The vapor cannot be made higher in pressure than it was before because the vapor's temperature can only equal what it was before while there is now more space for the vapor to exist, meaning that the vapor pressure has dropped.
By "rapid expansion," he must mean that the increased space allows the vapor molecules to get further apart, and he envisions the droplets getting smaller in this process, losing molecules to the vapor. If he's implying that this increases the gas pressure, I've got to say that I've never heard of a gas, at a higher volume and lower temperature, increasing in pressure. I'm therefore disappointed with the theory. It doesn't help the cause of scientific Creationism to have erroneous theories.
His first problem is that he views atoms under the erroneous kinetic theory of heat. In this theory, speedy atoms under high pressure are more likely to bond (i.e. to form droplets in a space), but vibrating with high energy, they also unmerge. He says: "These droplets evaporate, break up, and reform rapidly and continually." I don't see this as possible. The kinetic theory of heat is incorrect. Instead, atoms repel one another due to heat particles in their midst (it's why liquid atoms break their bonds and separate as free gas atoms). In a gas above critical temperature, gas atoms cannot bond, even when brought close together under high pressure, because the forces that bond them are weaker than their inter-repulsion due to heat (negative particles = free electrons) in their midst.
In reality, the higher the gas pressure, the more that gas atoms resist motion due to inter-repulsion, but the modern world has succumbed to the evolutionist's theory of kinetic heat, where atoms race about at higher speeds at higher temperatures. Christians need to abandon this view of atoms; it was created by the ungodly in order for cosmic evolution to become possible. The formation of stars and worlds is impossible from the big bang because all atoms repel one another, and that's why evolutionists chose to believe that all atoms attract one another. To explain how there can be gas pressure where atoms attract one another (a seeming contradiction), they invented the impossible: ever-moving atoms i.e. the kinetic theory. They believe that gas atoms are racing about, applying crash-pressure on the sides of the container in which they are trapped. The laws of physics forbids ever-moving atoms that contact one another. Contact between any two items, from any direction, reduces their sum energy levels and works toward a total ceasing of motion eventually, and soon.
Mr. Brown says that a liquid under high pressure "becomes increasingly agitated and resembles a choppy lake on a windy day. The liquid and vapor are nearly in equilibrium, so about as many molecules evaporate from the liquid as enter the liquid from the vapor." This is incorrect. A liquid under high pressure from the high-pressure vapor above it is apt to resist motion, and no gas atoms are apt to enter the liquid. Instead, the gas atoms take up a tight, motionless position at equa-distance from one another, and their pressing against the liquid causes liquid atoms to cease motion. Gas atoms do not contact the liquid physically, but do so through their repulsion forces. Their is repulsion force between liquid and gas atoms. Atoms won't move unless an outside force causes their motion. Gas atoms resist entering the liquid because the heat particles in their midst have made them negative, including the liquid atoms. Negative repels negative.
Once a liquid atom is freed from the bonding force that keeps it part of the liquid, it will not re-enter the liquid until something forces the gas atom to contact the liquid surface (in the case of dew, gravity causes this contact, for example, on the top surface of a leaf). Atom-to-atom contact is needed to start the bonding process, defined as the attraction of one atom's captured electrons by the proton of another atom. Mr. Brown's theory is therefore necessarily wrong. He should have resisted trying to state the cause of the heat-pressure that developed the Flood.
He continues: "At these very high temperatures, vapor molecules strike the liquid surface at a furious rate and splash droplets of liquid up into the dense vapor." No, that's not what happens, because atoms striking atoms brings them all to motionlessness. It is the evolutionist's fantasy that atoms continue to move after making contact. Christians should know better. Christians need to think for themselves rather than being trained by the ungodly. Christians need to be aware that the sciences are prone to error precisely because leading scientists are usually chosen amongst those whom have taken to the spirits of demons. A Creationist doesn't get far in the sciences unless he keeps his Creationism a secret from the leaders.
"The shimmering droplets, suspended in the vapor, are then bombarded from all directions by vapor molecules acting as bullets. When these “bullets” strike a droplet, they either fragment the droplet, stick to it, or bounce off the droplet. Droplets quickly fragment, merge, or evaporate." This is the sickness of evolutionists in the mind of a Christian. They take to a theory where atoms can make continual contact without slowing down. To fool us, the evolutionist says that energy cannot be destroyed, wherefore two atoms making contact can bounce off of one another with exactly the total energy they have before making contact. Or, if they are making contact slow enough to merge as a droplet, they will vibrate while merged with the same energy they had before making contact, and their vibrations will never come to an end, nor slow, so long as they are merged. This is ridiculous, yet the entire world of science has taken to it.
There is no difference between the attraction between atoms and the attraction of gravity upon an object. No object continues to bounce when it falls to gravity and makes contact with a surface. Gravity will bring the object to motionlessness simply because it's the law of attraction to do so. If atoms attract one another, the same law applies. If two connected atoms vibrate, they will travel away from one another half the time, which is synonymous with the bounce of a ball away from gravity. The attraction forces that keep the two atoms from separating fully will slow both down as they travel away from one another (for a micro-second), and the two atoms will therefore return toward one another with less energy. It's a no-brainer, yet Christians have not stood up against the evolutionist buffoons on this matter. Shame. On every bounce away from one another, atoms will lose energy. This is not the same as the destruction of energy. The demons have fooled you.
A ball does not stop bouncing on the pavement only because it has transferred all its energy to the pavement. It stops bouncing because attraction has that effect upon it. Two magnetic balls at rest and under attraction, after initiating motion -- driving each other with speed = energy toward one another -- do not bounce off of one another forever. They will transfer all their energy to one another, yet they do not bounce away from one another forever. What has happened to their energy of motion? Has it been destroyed because they come to a stop? No.
If two metal balls of non-magnetic nature are rolled directly toward one another at the same velocity, they will both stop on the spot when they strike. Did the energy get destroyed? No. The one ball transferred its energy to the other and caused it to cease motion thereby. A ceasing of motion is not evidence that energy has been destroyed, but rather that energy has been transferred. Transferred energy causes a ceasing of motion. Energy makes an object at rest move, and an equal force in the opposite direction makes it go back to rest. Energy was USED UP (not destroyed) to make it go back to rest. Energy counteracts energy to make the motion cease. Ditto with atoms when they strike one another, albeit atoms are under electro-magnetic forces at all times so that their attitudes follow suit.
A ceasing of motion is NOT indicative of destroyed energy; a ceasing of motion is part of motion, defined as zero motion in every direction. Energy is needed to create a zero-motion state in a moving particle. Multiple moving atoms making contact will use up all their energy to create motionless amongst themselves. More energy than is present cannot be used, but all the energy present will be used up. If you put x energy into a system of non-moving objects, x energy will need to be used up to bring the objects to rest. None of the energy was destroyed; it was all used up to bring back the original situation. A ceasing of motion amongst moving objects is evidence that energy was used. Zero motion is where things will stand until more energy is added, but the system will always use up energy, making it no longer usable, when contacts are made. That is a law of physics that the field of modern physics refuses to acknowledge publicly because it denies the kinetic theory. You cannot be a respected physicist today if you reject kineticism. Evolutionists have their control methods in use; get in line, or get out.
A kineticist wants you to believe with him that two atoms at the same velocity will strike head-on, with both bouncing away at the same velocity but in opposite directions. He claims that to see it in any other way is to claim destroyed energy. But it's a trick. If the atoms bounce away at the same velocity, then no energy was used in stopping them. How can energy not be used in stopping the atoms? They do stop, don't they? Yes, of course, for if atoms bounce away in opposing directions, they must first come to a stop. Energy is used to bring both atoms to a stop, and there is no energy left to make them bounce away. Do the math. If x energy is used to set a motionless atom in motion, and if it meets x energy head on, it will revert to a motionless state. It can do no better. Therefore, the stupid claims that there is twice the energy than the reality on every atomic bounce. The evolutionist creates energy from the fantasies of his goonery. He doesn't want you to realize that atoms lose energy on every bounce off of anything. That's why I'm telling you. This Western world proud of its science has it wrong all over the place.
If atoms are bonded in inter-attraction, and are made to move, they will quickly come to rest. If they are separated and therefore under inter-repulsion when they make contact, they will bounce away and take up positions as far as possible from one another. If not for gravity, all atoms in the air would travel continuously into outer space under their inter-repulsion forces. This is why air atoms are so high above us, all seeking to get away from one another. But when their inter-repulsion forces equals the force of gravity upon them, they cease to rise away from the ground. Repulsion forces diminish between atoms with distance apart from one another. It's well known that air atoms are further apart with height above the ground.
A little later on the same page: "Once the water became supercritical, the more soluble minerals, such as quartz in the chamber's floor and ceiling, dissolved, making that rock porous or spongelike." Mr. Brown has latched onto what I see as another evolutionist's fantasy: the dissolving of quartz = sand. A grain of sand immersed in water does not dissolve, but it is absolutely necessary that sand should dissolve in order for rocks to be formed over and over again (I don't believe rocks form over and over). Unless sand dissolves, there cannot be a cementing agent between the molecules of sand, but all rocks consist of a cementing agent. Evolutionists are well-known to invent fantasies, as required by their theories.
Mr. Brown bases his Flood mechanism on super-critical water, and the latter requires the weight of rock upon subterranean waters. However, he believes that the earth's crust was once unbroken (I agree), in which case it was a sphere. In the same way that there is no weight upon air or water under a stone arch, there cannot be any weight under rock that is a sphere. Only when a piece of the sphere is broken away can it be pulled by gravity into the underlying magma. The Flood teaches us that the crust was broken in several places, and the resulting weight-pressures upon the magma predict extraordinary lava eruptions upon the earth's surface, especially through the "cracks" where the pieces broke away.
After we get past Mr. Brown's tidal pumping and super-critical waters, we can probably agree more generally on the rest. We both can fathom that 40 days and nights of rain was due to hot waters spewing into the atmosphere. It is predictable that, after a few weeks (before the 40th day), the volcanic eruptions would be mainly under water i.e. no longer directly into the atmosphere, thus curtailing the amount of rainfall. Mr. Brown tackles the problem of hot waters upon the earth. He implies that the Flood water should have been very hot unless there was some cooling mechanism. If half the Flood was from subterranean waters in the hundreds of degrees, and half from normal seas at roughly 70 degrees F, then the Flood surrounding the ark would have been at boiling point, killing Noah's family.
But wait. The above is true only when the hot and cold waters are mixed over a short time. The Flood may have lasted 150 days for the very reason of allowing the Flood to cool gradually with time. Still, even if the water was 100-120 degrees over a mere month, it would have made life within the ark a crisis that I do not think God would have allowed. The solution is that most of the Flood water (i.e. in combination with volcanically-heated waters) was from cool water stationed within cavities under ocean floors. This water would not necessarily have been warmer than water at ocean floors (which is near the freezing temperature). In short, pressures within the planetary interior pushed the cool water up above the ocean floors. I cannot see any other explanation for a normal-temperature environment within the ark. Mr. Brown gives himself a major problem by using super-critical HOT water as the main Flood mechanism.
Here is where I think he kills his theory best: "The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth's gravity and became the solar system's comets, asteroids, and meteoroids." Not only does it seem like an impossible stretch that rocks should venture into space as far as comets do, but it is unlikely that these rocks would find lasting orbits around the earth if they started from the direction of the planetary core.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.htmlMr. Brown's explanation (page above) for the formation of huge so-called salt domes gave me an idea that never occurred to me before. He and I both see a salt ooze at the bottom of the cavities, pushed up along with the waters though passageways toward the surface. As it finds release on a sea floor, it spreads out into a horizontal layer, the opposite of vertical salt domes (they are pillar-shaped, really, with domed tops, a mushroom shape overall). It's known that salt domes penetrate many layers of sedimentary rock, and evolutionists, fantasy-crazed nuts that they are, believe that millions of years of pressure pushed the salt up through HARD rock. Mr. Brown takes a position that the salt, being lighter than the sedimentary layers (which was "mud" at the time), rose up through the layers in the shape of a plume or pillar. The idea is very viable. The way I see it, the building weight of thickening sedimentary material upon the salt ooze forced the latter upward where the sedimentary "mud" was least restrictive to passage. For example, where the material had least cementation material, or where it was less dense, or less heavy due to less thickness. Perfect.
He says: "The total volume of limestone on the earth today is staggering and cannot be explained by processes occurring at the earth's surface." He's correct. It's the Achilles heel of evolutionists, for limestone cannot be eroded and turned back to limestone strata. Evolutionists fail to mention this because they are dishonest. The first thing a new Christian learns about evolutionists is that they are diabolically dishonest. They are also masters at phrasing statements in such a way as the reader misses their tricks. They may as well be magicians pulling rabbits from their hats.
It's disappointing to see Mr. Brown's section, "Continental-Drift Phase." This very idea of the evolutionists is adopted by himself, though he takes an alternative explanation. Never mind continental drift; it didn't happen. There is no way for a piece of crust to float around like a ship at sea. If a piece breaks off the main sphere, it either rises with the magma pressure below, or sinks to gravity, or both. It cannot move laterally. It is like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle that is fixed between the other pieces.
Again, when the crust was a single-piece sphere, there was no weight directly below it due to the rocks that make up the sphere. The magma can weigh upon whatever is beneath it, but the solid rock did not weigh upon the magna because a sphere forbids its material to move downward. The sphere was in danger of being blown apart by increased internal heat (within the magma), but pressure-release valves, in the form of volcanic tunnels, is a design meant to save the crust from massive rupture. As magma was lost through volcanic tunnels in the crust, cavities formed in the crust that were partly filled with sea water, eventually, and partly filled with high-pressure space (equal to the pressure of sea water at that depth). During this process, sea level continually fell due to water transfer into cavities.
There is a question on whether the earth's core has any weight. Gravity is due to the negative force of free electrons (= heat source) in the magma. If there is no magma at the core, neither can there be gravity there to pull the magma downward. If the magma is itself in the shape of a sphere, then the core, not being magma, will be attracted upward toward the magma (for gravity attracts all atoms), which amounts to weight upon the magma, yes, but in the opposite direction. If the body of magma is a spherical layer rather then the whole beneath the crust, then the layer of magma on one side of the earth will repel the layer of magma on the opposite side. There arises a question on whether the far-side magma causes a gravity force on the near-side earth, for, perhaps, the near-side magma counteracts and nullifies the far-side gravity force. In this way, the gravity source is not at the core, as evolutionists believe, but as much as thousands of miles up from the core.
I have tried to understand attraction force, but cannot conceive of a literal attraction in the sense of one item being sucked toward a magnet or gravity source. I rather see attraction as due to particles on the opposite side of the attracted item propelling it toward the magnet, for in this way the striking particles are PUSHING an item rather than pulling it. My best-possible theory is that electrons are constantly shooting extra-small particles in all directions (meaning that atoms are ever shooting particles at one another), and that a magnetic / gravity source arranges for less captured electrons on the side of the atom facing it, thereby lumping most of the captured electrons on the opposite side of the magnetic source. Hence, the atom is releasing more particles on the opposite side, creating a higher rocket-propulsion scenario from that side. This theory seems viable only if electrons re-load constantly with the particles they shoot out, but this is very unimaginable because there needs to be a mechanism that keeps the particles shooting at the same speed continuously, the very thing I object to in the physical world. An alternative is that the particles never stop moving because they are an integral part of the Spirit of God, which is to say that God's spirit was tied to the creation in a very literal sense, with the "particles" of his Spirit existing between every electron and atom (makes it efficient for God to be in contact with everything at once). One could then literally say that God holds the Creation together. I'm not being dogmatic with this, and I don't delve into it to elaborate further, but I don't see a Creator tied to the Creation as being heretical / unholy necessarily. He can be as close to you as the atoms of your mind.
Isaiah has an interesting prophecy for the Day of the Lord in which the earth totters or sways. It's hard to make out whether this means a chaos in the earth's spin versus its orbit. The Day of the Lord is preceded by a temporary blackening of the sun (from various scriptures), and where solar gravity is from the heat from the sun, one predicts that solar gravity will be temporarily diminished at that time, causing the earth to veer farther into space, but then brought back to an orbit when normal sunlight resumes. What will this do to the earth orbit as a whole? Moreover, just previous to the blackening of the sun, the sunlight will become 1/3 its normal intensity, according to Revelation 8:12.
Mr. Brown's knowledge of the areas he deals with are vastly superior to mine, yet, the problem is, the very basis of his theory is based on false knowledge. Cracks are predicted to show in his work, and they do. I appreciate his position of revealing the Flood as an obvious fact of geology, and like this especially from his page 7 (above): "Figure 71: Desert Whales. In 2010, more than 80 fossilized whales (adult and juvenile baleen whales and an extinct sperm whale) were discovered in a narrow 65-foot by 800-foot strip near the coastal town of Caldera, Chile -- in the Atacama Desert, the driest desert in the world, where rain has never been recorded. Other fossils included sharks, a porpoise, a bird with a 17-foot wingspan, an extinct tusked dolphin, and a possible seal." For the normal person, this signals that sea water was over the desert. For the evolutionist goon bent on denying the Flood, he sees the sea floor rising over millions of years to become the desert or forest today.
The evolutionist says that all fossils were formed when animals became suddenly buried, but instead of seeing the Flood event that buried them, he claims normal situations that exist even today. So, then, show us the many animals buried today in the process of fossilization tomorrow. WHERE ARE THEY? What buried a huge "dinosaur" (this was a reptile in the richer, healthier pre-Flood world)? A dump truck? Other dinosaurs using the dead dinosaur as their toilet area? It couldn't have been sand storms because dinosaurs didn't live in the desert. Besides, there are no creatures buried in the desert that are now becoming fossils. All fossilized animals are within hard rock, not loose sand, and loose sand cannot become hard rock under normal conditions. Go ahead and try to make sand into hard rock without cement. Where did the cement come from to make hard rock? Wherever it came from, it settled over animals when they were buried, and a sand storm has no cementing agent.
Where do we get a situation in which the cement of rock falls upon dead animals, under water while they yet have flesh on their bones, along with the rock material in small particles? There is no-such situation in the seas today. But evolutionists claim this as fact anyway, because they think like distorted children. And distorted they are. God has sent them Creationists to correct them, in case they made an honest mistake in explaining things apart from a Flood, but instead of being thankful for correction, evolutionists have declared war. Therefore, war it is, winner takes all the earth.
Mr. Brown has a section, "The Origin of Limestone:" "Too much limestone exists on earth to have been formed, as evolutionists claim, by present processes on the earth's surface, such as the accumulation of pulverized corals and shells...How were sediments cemented to form rocks? Specifically, how were large quantities of cementing agents (usually limestone and silica) produced, transported, and deposited, often quite uniformly, between sedimentary grains worldwide? Especially perplexing has been finding the source of so much silica and the water to distribute it. Geologists call this “the quartz problem.”" Ahh, secretly, they acknowledge the problem of world-wide sand distribution. There is so much of it, and virtually everywhere, that one imagines the earth under a thick soup stirred vigorously. But stirred by what? What agitated the waters to the extent that sand and stone should be spread throughout the planet? I can see only one answer: high-pressure eruptions spewing material into the water. On this point, may all agree (ignoring evolutionists).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone2.htmlSand and oceans go together. We envision sand to have a source in eroded rock, but we don't tend to think that the world's sand supply was from water erosion. Something more powerful was needed. High-pressure eruptions explains all, not just the formation of sand in what was literally a sand-blasting process through rock crevices and tunnels, but the mixing of sand and stones in water. Yet, small volcanic eruptions, regardless of the great number, doesn't seem enough to form a sedimentary layer 5,000 feet thick, on average, throughout the planet. After a couple of thousand feet were laid, newly-arrived eruptions were powerful enough to pierce through it to fill the water above it still more with sand material, etc, until it was as thick as we find it today. One imagines tunnels piercing the sandy ooze. Where an accumulation of eruptions was not able to pierce the sediments, material was injected into their lower parts, and the sediments were thereby lifted and/or folded. It was a major catastrophe highlighting the fury of God against the wickedness of mankind.
An activist evolutionist is a pig who would take what's said above, and call me terrible names while insisting that everything I said could have been accomplished over millions of years with gentler volcanism. And that's why I'm calling him a pig before he insults me. If war is what they want, Christians should give it to them, because God is on our side and they don't stand a chance. However, we have got to be careful not to be like Mr. Brown where he makes too many conjectures as facts on the details of how the Flood proceeded. Some things are obvious, others not so much. It's enough to point out the obvious, for there is a lot of it. Mr. Brown makes a good point where he says that, no matter how the evolutionist cuts his theory on the formation of limestone (partly calcium), it had to exist, in the bounty that we witness it, before the organisms did. The sea creatures made of calcium didn't get calcium from magic. Where did it all come from if not the interior of the planet? Not from the sky. But the idea that limestone strata miles thick is fully derived from dead crusty creatures in the sea is an example of exactly why the evolutionist doesn't stand a chance in this war. He has managed to deceive a naive world, naive in the sciences, but as good science replaces their garbage, the man on the street, and his wife, will come to the truth...unless they hate God enough to resist it. This war is precisely against this type of demoniacal humanoid, and he has the government on his side, spreading his debauched science to students while you and me pay for it. This has got to end.
Can the goon point out even one limestone formation in the process, undersea, from the bony material on the backs of sea creatures? Not one example. Then why does the government support this goon? Because the goons started out with the British government as their partner, and applied the same strategy in America. The government and the Darwinian goons were one organ, hand in hand, with only the Christians in opposition. Time allowed them to corrupt our society, and here we are in what looms like an Armageddon scenario. In fact, Armageddon is a type of Flood-catastrophe intended to wipe out a wicked mankind all over again, this time by greater fire from the planetary interior. If the heat of the planet's interior is a part of the Lake of Fire, it would not be surprising. Creationists are the agents of warning.
Mr. Brown defines dolomite essentially as a limestone sprinkled with magnesium. "Geologists frequently refer to 'the dolomite problem.' Why is it a problem? Dolomite is not secreted by any known organism. If organisms deposited almost all limestone over hundreds of millions of years, how did dolomite form?" Don't worry, the evolutionist will have an answer, because his imagination can imagine anything as reality, so long as it doesn't include the Flood scenario. And that's why he is losing the war, because he is intent on resisting anything smacking of a catastrophe that rises to the level of a global Flood. People are beginning to see the plain and irresistible logic of a Flood scenario, once they read the other side of the science coin. Creationists need to be very careful not to push their science or pet theories too far with dogmatic conjecture.
The super-critical water that Mr. Brown continuously reinforces in the reader's mind is problematic for me. He seems to have invented this water's properties. Why not just view it as normal water in a slightly warmer or cooler state (to begin with) than at the ocean floor? Expanding magma forces the water up, and we don't need to know the reason for the expanding magma. When it hits the cool water, it explodes or cracks or whatever it happens to do in the shock, thus forming the bulk of sand and stones and rocks that become the sedimentary strata. Why complicate the event with a more-dynamic water having unusual properties? By this water, Mr. Brown forms additional theories all requiring some elaborate or even exotic explanations. It's all fodder for evolutionist goons seeking to undermine the Creationist, and meanwhile portraying him as a quack scientist. Put the onus on the evolutionist to explain his theories in light of the catastrophe that obviously took place. There is apparently nothing in geology that cannot be explained by the Flood scenario.
A Flood scenario absolutely requires the expanding of magma, and the upward movement of interior material transferred to the surface. After that, agitated and receding waters carved out the sedimentary layers, while yet soft, in numerous ways each providing a different "artwork." I do not get the impression that all sedimentary rock could have been formed purely from the erosion of hard rock, as fast waters passed through crevices and tunnels. Mr. Brown seems to imply this when he says that rocks shot as high as to form comets. He needs super-critical water for this, and so, I think, he may be basing the sedimentary-rock formation more on hard-rock erosion than otherwise (I haven't yet read much of his material so I can't say for sure). So far as I've read, he seems to think that limestone had its origin in precipitate within the super-critical water, but why not put the origin in the magma instead? Is there any reason that calcium cannot be a main constituent of magma?
He says, "Rocks, cemented with limestone, are found at all latitudes." This is an answer to evolutionist insisting that all limestone formed from crustaceans in equatorial zones. I studied the cementation of rocks a few months ago, and found it to be a hard topic to get details on because, I think, this is yet another problem for the evolutionist. Mr. Brown is probably taking the ordinary scientific position that limestone particles precipitated in water to become the cement between sand particles and stones. Yet, I read that sandstone has another cementing agent, and evolutionists would have us believe that it's from dissolved silica / quartz, a thing I have a problem with. "After limestone, silica (SiO2) is the second most common cementing agent in rocks. Derived from quartz, silica dissolves only 6 parts per million in pure water at 77°F (25°C). As temperatures rise, more silica goes into solution. At 300°F (150°C), silica concentrations reach 140 parts per million. If a silica-rich solution occupied the pore space between sand grains, silica would precipitate on their solid surfaces as the water cooled, cementing loose grains into rocks."
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone3.htmlI have a question as to whether evolutionists invented the 6 parts per million because they needed an explanation for the cementing of rocks that didn't use lime. When Mr. Brown speaks on a silica-rich solution, I find it a little hard to grasp, seeing how little silica dissolves even according to the claim. I have a hard time understanding why a small part of silica dissolves and not the rest. It seems more like fantasy than scientifically-proven fact. In water that is saturated in dissolved limestone / salts, dissolved sand within it becomes all-the-less likely even if any did dissolve in pure water. But to speak on a silica-rich solution seems very out-of-place. There really wasn't enough dissolved sand in the Flood to explain the cement within the vast volume of sandstone, was there? Another explanation is needed.
Mr. Brown finds an opportunity here to argue for super-heated waters, for he thinks this increases the speed by which silica dissolved. All that sand on the sea floor; it's still there after more than 4,000 years, not dissolved away. Let's wake up and smell the facts. Fact number one: the evolutionist is a liar. Fact number two: Mr. Brown sometimes takes the erroneous position of the evolutionist.
I can conceive of microscopic sand grains or even single sand molecules, but these would be produced by frictional forces rather than dissolved in solution. It would not be a cementing agent, anyway. Sand is not a glue. You can't press sand grains together and get them to stick. If volcanic-dump of sand falls on dump of sand in "silica-rich" water, even if there were 140 parts per million of sand molecules in the water, they are not going to get all of those sand grains to stick hard to one another, even they did constitute a cementing agent. This is the evolutionist's problem, and Mr. Brown puts his own foot into the problem. By suggesting that it's possible to cement sand with sand, he actually helps the evolutionist as he himself offers this impossible explanation.
I have read evolutionists explain why it takes millions of years for rocks to form under water. Anything that be proven to take millions of years is an opportunity for the evolutionist to shoot down Creationism. In this case, he says that it takes millions of years for a dissolved cementing agent to work its way through the pore spaces of a dump of sand on the sea floor. But wait. The dump of sand itself is said to take millions of years to heap up so that all sand grains are exposed directly to sea water for a long time, and should be cemented at that time. But he does not take this position because he knows that he would need to show us the sandstone in the midst of forming, right now, on the sea floor. It's not. Does he have a right to claim that sand piles up for millions of years without a cementing agent, and then, afterward, a cementing agents flows by in the water that sticks around for millions of years in order to get to the pores deep within the dump? This is contradictory because, while the "silica-rich" water sticks around for millions of years, other sand dumps in the vicinity can be glued as they are laid down grain-by-grain. Besides, why would silica-rich waters come and go? I know. It's because they have origin in his fantasies, where they can have it any-which way.
Imagine the government money spent to investigate and enlarge upon merely a fantasy, and then to pass it on educationally to the entire country. The money could be better spent building psyche wards and rehabilitation centers for evolutionists.
