Scientific proof of the method used to create "the great flood" ?

[goBigtime]

Antarctic craters reveal asteroid strike

Paul Brown
Thursday August 19, 2004
The Guardian

Scientists using satellites have mapped huge craters under the Antarctic ice sheet caused by an asteroid as big as the one believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs 65m years ago.

Professor Frans van der Hoeven, from Delft University in the Netherlands, told the conference that the evidence showed that an asteroid measuring between three and seven miles across had broken up in the atmosphere and five large pieces had hit the Earth, creating multiple craters over an area measuring 1,300 by 2,400 miles.

The effect would have been to melt all the ice in the path of the pieces, as well as the crust underneath. The biggest single strike caused a hole in the ice sheet roughly 200 by 200 miles, which would have melted about 1% of the ice sheet, raising water levels worldwide by 60cm (2ft).

But the climatic conditions were different at the time of the strike - about 780,000 years ago - from when the asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs struck Yucatan in Mexico.

That impact created dust storms and fires that, by blocking out the sun, cooled the Earth's atmosphere so much that the dinosaurs could not survive. The Antarctica strike occurred during an ice age, so even tidal waves would have been weakened to mere ripples by the calming effect of icebergs on the ocean.

Prof Van der Hoeven first realised that there may have been a giant asteroid strike in the Antarctic while on an expedition across the continent in 1960 when he noticed severe anomalies in the gravity from the rocks below, indicating a crater. By coincidence another scientist had concluded that a giant event must have occurred around 780,000 years ago somewhere in the southern hemisphere, probably Antarctica.

But it was not until this year, when two satellites operating above Antarctica began to map the anomalies in the gravity, that the scale of the crater emerged. The mapping showed that the holes in the rock created by the strike had refilled with a mixture of ice, rock and other debris far less dense. This material, called breccia, shows where and how deep the craters are.

Prof Van der Hoeven said: "The extraordinary thing about this meteor strike is that it appeared to do so little damage. Unlike the dinosaur strike there is no telltale layer of dust that demonstrates the history of the event. It may have damaged things and wiped out species but there is no sign of it."

One thing that did happen at exactly the same time was the reversing of the Earth's magnetic field. There is no other explanation as to why this took place and Prof Van der Hoeven believes it was caused by the impact.




From: http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...286205,00.html

[jade_dragon]

Interesting, this is what I want everyone who is reading this to do.


I want you to get a clear glass
Fill said glass 1/2 full with water
Fill the glass with ice untill the water level is right at the top
Sit said glass out and check periodically
Notice that when the ice melts the water level is the exact same if not lower and here is why.


When you freeze water it expands, it is probably the only substance in nature that does so, everything else shrinks when cold. Water when freezing starts to break down from H20 to H and O molecules which causes some of this swelling.

An object when put in water displaces the same amount of water as the object.

So putting an ice cube in water causes a rise in the water level of a container equal to the volume of the object. This object is ice which is frozen and expanded water which means when it melts it will remain equal or decrease due to that oxygen gas expansion and will both evaporate in the case of the water and the air will enter the atmosphere as O the gas.

What this means is the melting the ice on the planet will not increase the water level on the planet, as a matter of fact it will probably decrease the water levels slightly. The earth is pretty much a closed system due to the atmosphere, the water will evaporate only to condense and fall again, basic physics. It is suprising so many scientists overlook this because they listen to what one person says and then just build on it instead of learning building block principals. The evaporation will cause a higher average of precipitation but only in certain areas.

[detoxed]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
Interesting, this is what I want everyone who is reading this to do.


I want you to get a clear glass
Fill said glass 1/2 full with water
Fill the glass with ice untill the water level is right at the top
Sit said glass out and check periodically
Notice that when the ice melts the water level is the exact same if not lower and here is why.


When you freeze water it expands, it is probably the only substance in nature that does so, everything else shrinks when cold. Water when freezing starts to break down from H20 to H and O molecules which causes some of this swelling.

An object when put in water displaces the same amount of water as the object.

So putting an ice cube in water causes a rise in the water level of a container equal to the volume of the object. This object is ice which is frozen and expanded water which means when it melts it will remain equal or decrease due to that oxygen gas expansion and will both evaporate in the case of the water and the air will enter the atmosphere as O the gas.

What this means is the melting the ice on the planet will not increase the water level on the planet, as a matter of fact it will probably decrease the water levels slightly. The earth is pretty much a closed system due to the atmosphere, the water will evaporate only to condense and fall again, basic physics. It is suprising so many scientists overlook this because they listen to what one person says and then just build on it instead of learning building block principals. The evaporation will cause a higher average of precipitation but only in certain areas.

What about all the ice that is above ocean level? That will go into the ocean, causing water levels to rise. So you just wrote all that shit for nothing, lol

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by jade_dragon

What this means is the melting the ice on the planet will not increase the water level on the planet, as a matter of fact it will probably decrease the water levels slightly. The earth is pretty much a closed system due to the atmosphere, the water will evaporate only to condense and fall again, basic physics. It is suprising so many scientists overlook this because they listen to what one person says and then just build on it instead of learning building block principals. The evaporation will cause a higher average of precipitation but only in certain areas.

Not if the ice that is melting was ABOVE WATER.

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by detoxed
What about all the ice that is above ocean level? That will go into the ocean, causing water levels to rise. So you just wrote all that shit for nothing, lol

Thank you. I didn't even need my 2nd grade science class to know that.

[BRISK]

Yeah, what about all the ice that isn't currently in the water?

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by BRISK
Yeah, what about all the ice that isn't currently in the water?

Dude, just put some water in a glass and fill it to the rim with ice. You'll see!!!

[BRISK]

Originally posted by stocktrader23
Dude, just put some water in a glass and fill it to the rim with ice. You'll see!!!

OMG! I just did that and I accidentally created cold fusion!

[freeadultcontent]

Ok while you ice melting experts are busy.

My peeve. "the great flood" summons up biblical thoughts in my head. I always thought the main debate was about the ice age which seems such a strike could cause.

[jade_dragon]

Most people talk about the polar ice melting as together the glaciers out of the water do not equal the mass of the ice found within the water, once again the earth is a closed system, the reduction of water level by melting ice that is in the water will not be overwhelmed by the melting of the ice that is not in the water.

Ice that is not in the water will be able to penetrate the earth's surface as well as enter the upper atmosphere. The same amount of water basically is on this planet as it has always been. The melting of polar ice caps will not increase the water level which is what is in the article.

In an attempt to poke fun at the explination it seems you did not read this in the original post..... 2nd grade taught me to read everything before commenting

[BRISK]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
Most people talk about the polar ice melting as together the glaciers out of the water do not equal the mass of the ice found within the water, once again the earth is a closed system, the reduction of water level by melting ice that is in the water will not be overwhelmed by the melting of the ice that is not in the water.

Ice that is not in the water will be able to penetrate the earth's surface as well as enter the upper atmosphere. The same amount of water basically is on this planet as it has always been. The melting of polar ice caps will not increase the water level which is what is in the article.

In an attempt to poke fun at the explination it seems you did not read this in the original post..... 2nd grade taught me to read everything before commenting

So are you saying that the oceans are not and never have been rising?

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by BRISK
So are you saying that the oceans are not and never have been rising?

the levels of the oceans have long ago come to equilibrium, most officials talking about ocean level increases have been disproved by their physics based brotheren. The level of coastal surface area loss has been monitored and was confused with an increase in sea level. Coastal errosion has been proven and there are many steps being taken, as a matter of fact I was in a group in high school tht helped install cement rings off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi as well as the delta in Louisiana as well as the use of old discarded christmas trees in the swamps to prevent the coastal errosion of my state.

It will be many many years before sea level can be effected by the earth's tract through the solar system and our relationship with the moon which effects tide. The scientific community is always saying something which is either protested right then or found out to be false later when true scientific method without flawed methodology in testing. The fact is melting polar ice caps is not going to cause an increase in water levels by 2 feet.


Smoking is good for you says a group of scientists.....
The Blue Whale is extinct.....
The Y2K bug will cause the end of the world.......

Bicycle riding frequently may cause an increase in chances of developing testicular cancer is the latest thing I have come across, for years now people have been riding bikes for health, now a study says that it may be bad for you. Always look for both sides of a scientific study, look at the methodology and then go from there.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon

Ice that is not in the water will be able to penetrate the earth's surface as well as enter the upper atmosphere.

Here's a question Jade....


Say a HUGE, blistering HOT, meteor hits Antartica... would the ice that is melted and going into the upper atomosphere cause it to rain for awhile as the meteor cools down?

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
The fact is melting polar ice caps is not going to cause an increase in water levels by 2 feet.

Does it matter what rate of acceleration they are melted at?

Like what if they were melted completely over the course of a couple minutes?

[wdsguy]

isn't this pretty old news?

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by goBigtime
Here's a question Jade....


Say a HUGE, blistering HOT, meteor hits Antartica... would the ice that is melted and going into the upper atomosphere cause it to rain for awhile as the meteor cools down?

You would have to get into chaos theory to know where the water that boiled and evaporated would go, it could condense and fall over antarctica forming ice again, it could split itself up and fall equally across the globe showing no serious increase in one area, some of could hit a hole in the ozone layer and leave the system, it could all fall over your house and cause a flood there and in the surrounding area only. We are now getting into butterfly effect/chaos.

http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily...ews&id=7028

this is a story about a scientist who says that females are not meant to have orgasm and that men need them to ejaculate and is the only reason they are there. A SCIENTIST.

One only needs to talk to one man who has seperated the two using tantra and as far as the woman thing goes..... Vanilla please be a dear and school us on multiply orgasmic women and the ratio of orgasms to the men in a session on average. Just cause a "official" says it and it gets repeated everywhere does not mean it is 100% true.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
You would have to get into chaos theory to know where the water that boiled and evaporated would go, it could condense and fall over antarctica forming ice again, it could split itself up and fall equally across the globe showing no serious increase in one area, some of could hit a hole in the ozone layer and leave the system, it could all fall over your house and cause a flood there and in the surrounding area only. We are now getting into butterfly effect/chaos.

As long as we're speculating....

Is it also possible that it could have caused rain for 40 days and 40 nights?

[goBigtime]

Here's an interesting 3500+ year old quote:


Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.


In your best scientific opinion, what is happening in that passage?




NOTE: Organized religion sucks, but the bible is kind of interesting what with all it's crazy high tech events going on.

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by goBigtime
Does it matter what rate of acceleration they are melted at?

Like what if they were melted completely over the course of a couple minutes?

No not really, the ice actually takes up more space than the water it is made up of, this is why in the ice in the glass example the water level is lower when the ice melts. If you put the water and ice in a closed system and then flash boiled the water level still goes down, as a matter of fact it will be much lower in the bowl as the water vapor is in the atmosphere of the control area you have, if it is small enough you have condensation on the walls of the control area. If you put all the water back in the bowl somehow it is lower both because of the air removal and because some of it will be lost to the system itself. Fact is less water.


Also remember the continents are not cemented they are on plates which glide across the earth (plate tectonics). To prove that sea level is increasing every year you have to measure the sea by itself not by a land based mark, doing so destroys the methodology. Ocean waves as well as time of year (distance from earth to moon), weather patterns (hurricanes and storms) will change the level of the seas appearance. So far I have never seen the correct methodology behind a claim that the oceans level has been rising substantially outside of its normal pattern. If someone has please show it to me so I can learn

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally posted by goBigtime
As long as we're speculating....

Is it also possible that it could have caused rain for 40 days and 40 nights?

and while that is being speculated , please tell me who would win in a fight the toothfairy or the easterbunny

[Doctor Dre]

One of the very first scientific news arround here that we don't have to post a timeline picture ! Congrats

[goBigtime]

Hmmmm

Check out the YLT translation of the same passage:


YLT:
Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,

KJV:

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.



Woo. Scared yet?

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
and while that is being speculated , please tell me who would win in a fight the toothfairy or the easterbunny

Easy.

The Toothfairy.

She has mad bling to hire people to take out the Easter Bunny before the bout would even start, or in the very least, pay the EB to take a dive.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
So far I have never seen the correct methodology behind a claim that the oceans level has been rising substantially outside of its normal pattern. If someone has please show it to me so I can learn

http://www.thestudentzone.com/articles/kiribati.html

How about that?





No no no, the ocean levels are not rising... the island of Kiribati is just ..umm.. sinking! Yes! The island is sinking! No ocean levels rising.

[BRISK]

Originally posted by goBigtime


No no no, the ocean levels are not rising... the island of Kiribati is just ..umm.. sinking! Yes! The island is sinking! No ocean levels rising.

[Jman]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
Interesting, this is what I want everyone who is reading this to do.


I want you to get a clear glass
Fill said glass 1/2 full with water
Fill the glass with ice untill the water level is right at the top
Sit said glass out and check periodically
Notice that when the ice melts the water level is the exact same if not lower and here is why.


When you freeze water it expands, it is probably the only substance in nature that does so, everything else shrinks when cold. Water when freezing starts to break down from H20 to H and O molecules which causes some of this swelling.

An object when put in water displaces the same amount of water as the object.

So putting an ice cube in water causes a rise in the water level of a container equal to the volume of the object. This object is ice which is frozen and expanded water which means when it melts it will remain equal or decrease due to that oxygen gas expansion and will both evaporate in the case of the water and the air will enter the atmosphere as O the gas.

What this means is the melting the ice on the planet will not increase the water level on the planet, as a matter of fact it will probably decrease the water levels slightly. The earth is pretty much a closed system due to the atmosphere, the water will evaporate only to condense and fall again, basic physics. It is suprising so many scientists overlook this because they listen to what one person says and then just build on it instead of learning building block principals. The evaporation will cause a higher average of precipitation but only in certain areas.

I just tried this with Crown and Coke... Guess what after 20 minutes there's only ICE in the damn glass.

WOW

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by JMan
I just tried this with Crown and Coke... Guess what after 20 minutes there's only ICE in the damn glass.

WOW

Are you sure?? Better try again

[fr8]

Originally posted by BRISK
OMG! I just did that and I accidentally created cold fusion!

lol, What kind of water were you using?

[Jman]

Originally posted by goBigtime
Are you sure?? Better try again

OK should I try with less ice and more fluids this time

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by JMan
OK should I try with less ice and more fluids this time

Definitely, and you should probably do it at the strip club so you have plenty of witnesses of the results

[jade_dragon]

Were the biblical floods 780,000 years ago?

*clears throat and pats forehead with hankercheif*

Let the congregation open our bibles to Genesis Chapter 6 the 15th verse.

And this is the fasion which thou make it of. The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits and the height 30 cubits.

*closes bible*



A cubit is an ancient measure of distance, explained as the length of the average mans arm about 2 feet give or take.

The measurements of the Ark were

600 X 50 X 60, that is a pretty impressive ship by any standard, especially to be built by a 600 year old man ;) Then they filled said ship with 2 of each animal (some say it was more than this something like 7 pairs of every clean and 3-5 pair of every unclean) but anyway we have a zoo on this boat that somehow fits and they are supposed to eat each other but somehow we do not have species completely destroyed after 40 days. Ask a person at the zoo how much food they go through in a week.


So my answer to that is great inspirational story you have brought to our attention, one of my favorites from a kids. I especially love the part at the end where god says "That was kinda harsh, ok ok, I PROMISE that I will not do it again, and to prove it. *reaches in his bag of tricks* TADAHHHH here is a rainbow, so you can always remember the time I slaughtered you for having free will like a kid stepping on ants, it will always be here for you to remember, thank you have a nice day inbreeding to replace the people of the earth, something I will make a social stigma and sin in a couple thousand years!

Now we know that a rainbow is the light spectrum as seen split by water vapor in the atmosphere. HUMN there used to be other groups of people who explained natural things in life by making up stories about godly influinces because they lacked the technology and science to answer why they really were there, they were called The Greeks and The Romans (there were more but we are most aware of these). Science came in and told us stars were balls of hot gas not markers to make us remember heros, and that red tide was red algea growth not Posieden slaying sea monsters! The bible is one of the greatest gathering of inspirational stories ever made, best selling also. I see it and the stories in it nothing more than ways we can learn lessons and hope to live on this planet doing good by those we share. I do not believe everything in it happened as it was written for man by man and so is open to heavy influince and flaws.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon


The measurements of the Ark were

600 X 50 X 60, that is a pretty impressive ship by any standard, especially to be built by a 600 year old man ;) Then they filled said ship with 2 of each animal (some say it was more than this something like 7 pairs of every clean and 3-5 pair of every unclean) but anyway we have a zoo on this boat that somehow fits and they are supposed to eat each other but somehow we do not have species completely destroyed after 40 days. Ask a person at the zoo how much food they go through in a week.

I'll just reply to this first part....


You're a scientist... ever heard of DNA? or maybe even a DNA Arkive?

When dealing with DNA samples, "clean" and "unclean" might bring in even more meaning no?



You don't have to feed a DNA sample, or worry about them attacking each other or filling the Ark full of excrement.

[jade_dragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by goBigtime
[B]http://www.thestudentzone.com/articles/kiribati.html

How about that?


Where was the scientific method, once again we have appearance , there is the mention of storms and erosion of coast which I have already mentioned. Where is the scientific method of measuring the actual distance from the ocean floor to the top of the ocean?

All I read was that over the past 11 years, some storms were able to push water further and further inland because the waves have been eating away the beach and shifting the sand in the area off shore, this is nothing new, you can see it even in the bays of inland lakes, all be it much slower and more gradual than when talking about hurricane driven waves and moon driven tides.

[BRISK]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
have a nice day inbreeding to replace the people of the earth, something I will make a social stigma and sin in a couple thousand years!

Hey, it worked for Adam & Eve

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon

Where was the scientific method

Ok, then how about this: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994903


Scientific method used:

Simon Holgate and Philip Woodworth of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, in Bidston, UK, found this discrepancy using the Topex satellite, launched in 1992. The satellite measures sea level by bouncing microwaves off the ocean and timing the return trip.

According to the Topex data, global average sea level rose by 2.8 millimetres a year between 1993 and 2002. This is thought to be a consequence of global warming: water in the oceans expands as it warms up, and more is added as glaciers and ice caps melt.

But during the same period, the water level within 100 kilometres of the coast rose faster, by an average of 3.7 millimetres a year.





Of course now you'll reply back citing another "Some scientists believe oranges are really apples at the molecular level!", to try to discount the findings mentioned above.

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by BRISK
Hey, it worked for Adam & Eve

Yeah and ever since man has been fucked over by women who were manipulated Adam didn't even know where the apple came from! But how cool is it that her doing that is the reason women have birth pains to this day, also how it influinces people to stay in a church and to submit their children to a ritual so the sins of our forefather can be erased, and also uses the snake which is one of the 3 things that all primates are naturally afraid of (the others being fire and the dark). Coincidence......




Kiribati (pronounced "Kiribas") ? 33 coral atolls strung across two million square miles of the Pacific ? is steadily vanishing beneath the waves. Around the world, sea levels are rising as greenhouse gases discharged by industrialised countries warm the oceans.



This one was so badly written that it just says that the oceans are warmer and so the water level is higher. I put my foot in the Pacific one time, trust me it can stand to be a little warmer! Ask Brizzad, MikeAI or any of the other people on here who are from Louisiana about coastal erosion and the ground under you sinking everyday.

[freeadultcontent]

Originally posted by goBigtime
Easy.

The Toothfairy.

She has mad bling to hire people to take out the Easter Bunny before the bout would even start, or in the very least, pay the EB to take a dive.

I dissagree, thr easter bunny has hidding down to a science.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by jade_dragon

So my answer to that is great inspirational story you have brought to our attention, one of my favorites from a kids. I especially love the part at the end where god says "That was kinda harsh, ok ok, I PROMISE that I will not do it again, and to prove it. *reaches in his bag of tricks* TADAHHHH here is a rainbow, so you can always remember the time I slaughtered you for having free will like a kid stepping on ants, it will always be here for you to remember, thank you have a nice day inbreeding to replace the people of the earth, something I will make a social stigma and sin in a couple thousand years!

If you look at genesis, "god" wanted us to stay away from science, or knowledge of how things work, or whatever the "tree of knowledge" is/was... (DNA?). According to the texts which are thousands of years old, he/she/it/they were afraid of us figuring it out and becoming immortal. (something that is definitely plausible with our modern understanding of DNA no?)

Anyway... It doesn't seem that god was really down with us figuring out this magic.

Iit also doesn't seem like all the words of god from the different books are coming from the same god.

I read something about the inbreeding thing you mentioned though... (and no it wasn't at kissingcousins.com )...... I can't remember what it was, but they posed a good argument for why it would have been OK to inbreed back in those days. Cleaner gene pool or something?

Remember, those guys were sort of sub-human back then too... ie Noah living hundreds of years. Humans, V1.0b

[rowan]

Originally posted by jade_dragon
http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily...ews&id=7028

this is a story about a scientist who says that females are not meant to have orgasm and that men need them to ejaculate and is the only reason they are there. A SCIENTIST.

One only needs to talk to one man who has seperated the two using tantra and as far as the woman thing goes..... Vanilla please be a dear and school us on multiply orgasmic women and the ratio of orgasms to the men in a session on average. Just cause a "official" says it and it gets repeated everywhere does not mean it is 100% true.

Can you post a proper link? This one is ...'d

Vaginal orgasm is a lie!

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by rowan

Vaginal orgasm is a lie!

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by goBigtime
Ok, then how about this: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994903


Scientific method used:

Simon Holgate and Philip Woodworth of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, in Bidston, UK, found this discrepancy using the Topex satellite, launched in 1992. The satellite measures sea level by bouncing microwaves off the ocean and timing the return trip.

According to the Topex data, global average sea level rose by 2.8 millimetres a year between 1993 and 2002. This is thought to be a consequence of global warming: water in the oceans expands as it warms up, and more is added as glaciers and ice caps melt.

But during the same period, the water level within 100 kilometres of the coast rose faster, by an average of 3.7 millimetres a year.





Of course now you'll reply back citing another "Some scientists believe oranges are really apples at the molecular level!", to try to discount the findings mentioned above.

Actually no need to, you actually just gave a lot of validation to my argument

I find it interesting that you quoted this and then completely ignored anything contradictory such as



Boundary waves


In 1996, ocean modellers predicted that this effect could be at work in the seas. Kirk Bryan of Princeton University and his colleagues worked out what would happen when part of an ocean heats up: the water expands, creating waves that hit the coast then travel around the rim of the ocean basin for several years.




But tell me this about the telescope and how it shows levels higher at the coasts than in the middle of the ocean..... How would the addition of water from melted ice on the WHOLE over the COMPLETE amount of interconnected water on the planet called the oceans be higher at the points where it meets the land and not equally as high in the middle of the ocean? Water in a glass is higher at the edges, this is because of the cohesive principle of water. Water is more or less dense based on its temperature, but there is an average temperature of ocean water and it also behaves differantly than fresh water, more physics that is being completely overlooked in these findings, more lack of proper scientific method

A wave exists when the water molecules at the bottom of the wave bump into the ocean floor, the molecules at the bottom of the wave slow down because of friction, the water at the top does not get slowed down as much and so it keeps a more uniformed speed. When the differance in speed is to great the water at the top, topples over and the wave crashes, this has the effect of moving sediments or erroding solid items. The bigger the waves the more violent the action and the more they move. Plants help to reduce this as their roots hold the sediments, but Water is the strongest force on earth, it can dissolve almost anything when given enough time and when driven by wind it is damn near unstoppable.

So is it safe to say that the constant crashing of waves over the years could in fact have removed increasing amounts of sediment from the continents across the world, that said waves could now be getting to softer and softer sediments with less and less plant life to slow the process, that said process has been happening all the time and that only NOW within the past 20 years have people started monitoring and are basing things on appearances. You very own argument says that the coasts show increases while the middle does not, seems to me that the erosion is digging at the coast lines and giving the waves more and more distance to travel with each crash........ THAT is scientific method, not looking at something and saying "oh cuz i see it that is what happened", that is speculation. When you look at a problem and you analize it, you test things in controls, you use logic THEN you are using scientific method.



According to the Topex data, global average sea level rose by 2.8 millimetres a year between 1993 and 2002. This is thought to be a consequence of global warming: water in the oceans expands as it warms up, and more is added as glaciers and ice caps melt.

But during the same period, the water level within 100 kilometres of the coast rose faster, by an average of 3.7 millimetres a year.

Holgate and Woodworth wonder whether the oceans are behaving like water in a bathtub. If you splash in the bath, waves travel outwards and then run around the edges of the tub.




no when you splash in a bathtub the waves go outwards till they hit the edges, then they rush back towards the origin, they then hit each other and weaken, some of the energy causes a reverse wave which starts the process over again untill friction changes all kinetic energy back into potential energy. But once again we have the melting of ice adding to water levels, just not true, if the water is warming and melting the ice then the ice is going to cause the level to go down.

[fudpuck]

Food for thought...

http://www.fudpuck.com/begin/universe/water.html

[Webby]

Sheesh.. more fucking GFY "experts" - pressing the back button!

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by goBigtime
I'll just reply to this first part....


You're a scientist... ever heard of DNA? or maybe even a DNA Arkive?

When dealing with DNA samples, "clean" and "unclean" might bring in even more meaning no?



You don't have to feed a DNA sample, or worry about them attacking each other or filling the Ark full of excrement.

actually since DNA did not exist in any known fasion this is more in the meaning of how the animal lived its life. You can get way more information from people who follow the Jewish faith about this than you can from me, I know of it but do not know enough about it at the moment to explain it other than it seems to have to do with what the animals eats (its own waste or scavanges). I will look this up later so that I will know in the future

[jade_dragon]

Originally posted by Webby
Sheesh.. more fucking GFY "experts" - pressing the back button!

I know only what I know from studying, I do not say I am an expert, nor while I ever say that I can not be wrong. I try only to speak of what I know, always listen to other people, ask lots of questions of others and try to retain and consume info. When others bring me info that teaches me something I am very pleased by it and will be the first person out of any group to say I was wrong in that event and thank you for showing something to me that I did not know.

[jade_dragon]

http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/...llnews&id=7028


this is the link to the doctor with the claims about sex being made more for men than women.


As far as vaginal orgasm being a lie..... Vanilla