Sean K Reynolds wrote:
What about using it in an archetype or as a Hunter only feat? That way it would be optional. It's really no more complicated than playing a Wildshaping Druid, a Summoner, a Conjurer, or any number of other classes with often changing stats.
For the experienced player it wouldn't be difficult to track. It would be a somewhat relatively simple way to greatly boost the AC's power.
Thanks LazarX, but I was already accounting for that. Most people still see the Class Features that support the pet as being underpowered still, even with permanent Animal Focus. My suggestion is to introduce a mechanic to increase the effective Hunter level to determine the pet's ability. As in higher than the class level.
I won't be having the chance to actually play, but I have a build for a level 10 Bloodrager that someone can use.
Human Bloodrager 10, Arcane Bloodline
Numbers in brackets  indicate the difference while raging.
Str: 22 (+6) [26 (+8)]
Fort: +13 [+16]
Berserker of the Society (+3 rage rounds)
1. Power Attack
Acrobatics 1 (+4) (-3 ACP)
1: Enlarge Person, True Strike, Shield, Grease, Obscuring Mist. B: Magic Missile.
2: Mirror Image, Tactical Acumen, Effortless Armor, Web. B: Invisibility.
3: Fly, Greater Magic Weapon.
Armor: +1 Mithril Full-Plate (10/+3/-3) (11,500 GP)
Weapons (using Arcane Strike):
+1 Furious Greatsword (+17/+12, 2d6+12) [+19/+14, 2d6+15] (8100 GP)
Headband of Cha +2 (4,000 GP)
Leftover gold for expendables and day to day expenses: 5623 GP.
Obviously feel free to correct any errors, adjust to your playstyle and campaign, and otherwise improve this. Let us know how it goes.
It seems to me that the best way to balance the new classes and get them to "comparable" power level with the existing classes (comparable being a relative term) is to fully optimize them and then use optimized builds in scenarios. Ideally the new classes would be played through the same scenario as similarly optimized builds of established classes. The new classes could also be substituted for the old classes according to their determined new roles.
So, my question is this: who else thinks this should be done sooner rather than later and would be willing to give it a preliminary shot?
Question 1: read all of the optimization guides you can find and then look up what they're talking about on the srd. Or books if you prefer.
Question 2: no experience with that.
Question 3: no experience with that either, but there are resources for that.
Question 4: entirely player and group dependent. As such stereotypical answers likely won't work anyway.
Question 5: have the villain be the fish monger. You must rescue the other fishing captains and their companies from his tyrannous rule. Kinda sounds like Forrest Gump to me.
Question 6: hide them, but so that you can make adjustments on the fly. Not hiding them is a great way to accidentally tpk your party.
If by "best class" you mean most versatile: Inquisitor. Especially if you consider versatile to mean best class to be a one character party. In fact I posted a build as such about two years ago.
Granted the Conversion Inquisition isn't PFS Legal.
Sadly I never found out if I won. lol
Another interesting question that was touched on would be what the best class to comprise a single class party. Four Inquisitors, four Druids, four Wizards, etc...
What are your skills?
As important as Perception is, I probably wouldn't give up Ferocity on a Half-Orc that can heal himself. Max it out and all, but it's only so important. Though Sacred Tattoo and Toothy are good too.
Also, I'd consider switching your Dex and Con. Dex contributes to many more attributes than Con does and you have more than enough max Dex in your armor for it. Sure it helps with HP, Fort, and Rage rounds, but it's easier to supplement Con than Dex.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
I think another reference at the beginning of the spell section and a different font color/style should suffice. If you change the font somehow people will know something is up with them so they'll look around to see what it is. You know, if they skipped straight to the spells without reading the intro.
Yeah, I love Conjurors and I was very disappointed when I found that too.
Well, is there a better Save or Die by 5th level? That targets Will? If you pick the target wisely in the right campaign it may as well be a Save or Die. I think it's worth Yellow or Green.
1. You're listing the Cure and Inflict spells as if you'd need to pick them separately to know them. At least that's the impression I get. It looks like it could use better wording to make clear that you get all of one line or the other known for free.
2. For Continual Flame, you say not to take it because your Summoned Lantern Archon can cast it for you. Actually, he can't:
Summon Monster wrote:
Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).
I still don't think it's worth knowing. Just pay a spellcaster to cast it for you. It's better than buying an Everburning Torch at retail, since you can have it cast into anything you want. My preference is a pebble that I keep in a poison pill ring for easy access and hiding of the light when necessary.
3. I think I saw in one of the Cleric guides that someone said they used Water Walk as an underwater Reverse Gravity. Kinda funny and may be useful, especially in an aquatic campaign.
4. For Plane Shift, how about Plane Shift as an attack? Send them to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing. ;-)
5. For Dust Form, it's spelled "per se". I don't generally nitpick spelling but I noticed it and thought you may not want future readers to notice it. :-)
6. For Regenerate, you say there's no rules on severing limbs. How about called shots? Granted, those are optional rules and not used in PFS. Still I think it merits a mention, though it's hardly worth changing the rating over.
Thanks for the credit in the Special Thanks section. I'll finish reading your new stuff and may have an opinion or two on it.
I do have a new thought on the Deaf curse though. Yes the autofail on audible Perception still sucks, but there are barely any bad side effects socially. The reason for this:
In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, any PC may learn to read lips with a rank in Linguistics as if they had learned a new language. When reading the lips of a speaking creature within 10 feet in normal lighting conditions, the reader need not make any skill checks. In situations of dim lighting, extreme distances, or to read the lips of someone trying to hide their words from the reader, the reader must make Perception checks (DC determined by the GM based on the situation). A lip reader may only understand spoken words in a language it knows.
So 1 rank in Linguistics and the social penalty is almost entirely mitigated. In an amusing way, it makes low-light vision or darkvision more important though. If it's good for PFS it should be good for most reasonable GMs in home games. I think this should push Deaf to Green, since free Silent Spell and immunity to Silence alone are awesome, let alone extra senses later on and reduced penalties for being Deaf.
This will be my last post on this thread, at least for a little while. I'm too busy to keep up with everything here. Thanks for the challenges.
Indeed it is. I'd consider it one of the most important points about how science and faith interact.
Uniformitarianism is NOT an assumption. Its a conclusion. Its a conclusion based on so much evidence, that explains and predicts so much of what we see around us, that it has become a fact. And for good reason.
You all trust Wikipedia, right? At least they don't have a theistic bias anyway.
They say quite a few times that it IS an assumption. Granted, they say that it's a nearly universally accepted assumption, but it's an assumption nevertheless. I'm not questioning the "laws of physics and chemistry are consistent across time and space" part of the assumption. Furthermore, in a randomly formed naturalistic universe, why should we expect constancy of physical laws?
I'm questioning the "all geological processes have always happened and will always happen at roughly the same rate as today's processes" part of the assumption. Essentially, I'm questioning gradualism.
Interestingly, many secular scientists are also questioning gradualism. They don't go from there to Biblical flood geology; instead they go to catastrophism. I find that to be a convenient way to explain the appearance of catastrophes throughout geological history and yet denying the possibility of a global flood on Earth. It seems that most secular scientists find a global flood on Mars to be a more likely possibility, despite the abundance of water on Earth. I'm betting it's because the Bible doesn't describe a global flood on Mars, but YMMV. :P
We had video cameras all over the place at the 1998 World Series as you said, but we can't say the same of the origins of life and the universe. It's a different ballgame to figure out who killed someone with forensic evidence than to figure out the mechanisms of the origins of the Earth and the universe. On that point we seem to have hit an impasse on.
Stuff on Antarctica
That's a better explanation than Ancient Aliens gave. They said aliens did it. :P
I found this link as one of Wikipedia's references. Note that it's a non-Christian and, in fact, a relatively anti-Christian site (based on an article or two I read there.). I don't know that this is right and that you're wrong as your explanation made sense too. Interesting though.
Paul: I don't know about the information thing. At first glance it seems arbitrary to define information in such a way that doesn't contradict your theory, but I don't know. I don't profess to be a genetics professor.
Paul Watson wrote:
EDIT: Also, please stop using the word 'evolutionist'. It is a word used only by creationists. It has no meaning to anyone else. What you mean is the vast majrotity of scientists and the overwhelming majority of biologists. So be honest and say that. Evolutionist is a weael word to imply you and they are on equal footing. You're not. On the one side you have pretty much everyone who does science and on the other you have a bunh of religious zealots who cannot accept that their holy book is not 100% literally rtue. The recent Kiltzmeyer v Dover case proved that.
Well, creationists aren't considered real scientists by many people. When those people say that most scientists believe in macro-evolution what they really seem to mean is that most scientists are scientists. That seems kinda circular to me. It's easier for me to say "evolutionist" than "macro-evolutionist" or "rational scientist guy" or something like that. I apologize if that offends you and if I participate in conversations like this in the future I'll try to be more sensitive. :)
Also, another page I found on the World-Mysteries site (once again, a non-Christian site) is here. Here's the abstract:
"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors."
Quite thought provoking. Thank you to everyone for the challenges and the opportunities to learn. :)
My main point is that origins science on either side relies on unprovable assumptions. We weren't there and didn't see it. It won't happen again. I'm not so much saying that there's a conspiracy. It's more like I don't think people always question their assumptions enough to realize that they're not necessarily true. I apologize for repeating it, but I was just trying to get my point across. I can tone that down, but it's fundamental to my worldview and can't easily just drop it when people challenge the concept of assumptions.
I suppose finding naturally occurring subterranean super-critical water would be a good start. Actually, they did find that:
“Even Jules Verne didn’t foresee this. Down at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean is the hottest water on Earth, in a ‘supercritical’ state never seen before in nature ... and could offer a glimpse of how minerals such as gold, copper and iron are leached out of the entrails of the Earth and released into the oceans. Its water, but not as we know it ... .” Catherine Brahic, “Superheated Water Spews from the Seabed,” New Scientist, Vol. 198, 9 August 2009, p. 14.
That's the subterranean water according to the theory.
I like Half-Elves for Summoners because of the favored class bonus: + 1/4 to Eidolon's evolution pool. Evolutions are quite nice.
I like Half-Orcs for Ferocity if I can cast cure spells.
Obviously the other races are really good in specific builds: Elven Wizards, Halfing archer Bards, Dwarf Inquisitors, etc...
Kirth Gersen wrote:
If you're relcutant to carefully read things by secular geologists, and prefer a more "faith-friendly" series of informative writings on why a global Flood, while an excellent allegory, is not a literal historical event, you might check out The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth by Davis Young and Ralph Stearley, two devout Christians. Also, J. Laurence Kulp, a Wheaton alumn, geochemist, and member of the Plymouth Brethren, wrote an excellent article refuting flood geology: Kulp, J. Laurence, 1950, Deluge geology. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 2 (1): 1–15.
Thanks, I appreciate that. It doesn't bother me to read things by secular scientists. In my view it's not so much that I don't trust secular scientists. I simply don't trust the assumptions behind their methodology, such as uniformitarianism. It's those assumptions that I don't agree with and old earth creationists (knowingly or not) use the same assumptions. Because of this, scientifically speaking I disagree with old earth creationists in a similar way than atheists who say much the same things while leaving out God as active in the process.
So, I appreciate that you were thoughtful enough to find that and I'll look at it when I have the chance, but I'm fine with reading secular scientific papers.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That is a very thought provoking quote. Thank you.
I'm not always as clear as I should be in my posts and for that I apologize. That may be why many of you get the impression that I'm ignorant about naturalistic theories. I consider myself to have a fairly firm grasp on the basics. I did learn all of this in school and do like reading about science after all. When you respond, don't be afraid to use technical language in your posts. I know what isotopes and dipoles are, for instance. I don't want to brag, but I do want to make that clear. The reason I quote so heavily from that site is because I don't want his theory to be misrepresented by me because I know my limits of paraphrasing, especially when I don't have a lot of time for posting.
However, I wouldn't by any means consider myself to know as much as you (or at least many of you) on all of the specifics. I don't know everything and I don't want to imply that I think I do. There are some objections that you all raise that I may not be able to answer, at least not right away. I try to make it a point to concede those points when that happens.
BNW, I'll get to your post later because it's kinda long. For now, I saw that you mentioned Antarctica. I don't know how to respond to your question about marsupials. For one thing, I wasn't previously aware of it, so I'll have to look into it. Since you mentioned Antarctica, I wonder what all of you think of this.
Paul Watson wrote:
By IRV, I assume you mean retroviruses. I'm familiar with them and with telomeres. I'll grant that it makes sense within an evolutionary framework for the genetics to match up, at least to a certain extent. However, all that these similarities really prove is similarity. It could be from common descent, but it could also be from common design. We build stuff all the time and we frequently use very similar base materials in very similar ways for different objects because we have very similar intended uses for them. The things that we build frequently have things in common because they had a common designer: mankind. If God really did create everything, why shouldn't we expect similar features throughout creation?
Paul Watson wrote:
Also, given you're criticiing other people for not understanding your pet theories, you show a marked lack of understanding of, so far, physcis, biology, astronomy, geology and probably half a dozen other sceintific disciplines. How about you correct your own plank before commenting on our spekcks, huh?
I'll grant that I'm not an expert on naturalistic theories and shouldn't be so harsh with others. I apologize for that.
Paul Watson wrote:
Also, you claim science is anit-Christian. B%@$#@&s. Millions of prominant scientists are Christians. Millions more have faith in a different higher power. They just view the Bible as allegory rather than literal truth. Especially given the poetic structure used in Genesis (not to mention the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 disagree on things far worse than you claim science does). Also, apparently you didn't know that the first people to disprove the Flood hypothesis where Christian creationists such as Adam Sedgewick who was an ordained minister. He hated God, huh? Wrong. He set out trying to prove the Flood hypothesis and found no evidence at all for a global flood.
I never claimed science itself was anti-Christian. Romans 1 and Psalms have plenty to say about seeing evidence for God through His creation. All I've been claiming is that science as understood by evolutionists doesn't line up with what the Bible says as far as I understand it.
I never said that you had to hate God to not believe in a young Earth and a global flood and I apologize if I implied it. There are plenty of honest, God loving Christians who don't agree with me on this subject. I'd consider them misguided on this issue, but I don't question the legitimacy their faith.
Paul Watson wrote:
EDIT: Oh, and the 'lack of radioactivity in Noah's time'? Pure and total b**@##!~. They would still have to deal with the massive amounts of UV light that the sun puts out every day. Oh, look, that's radioactivity and causes changes in DNA, which we know, it's why we get skin cancer.
I overstated my case on this point. I meant that it was the origin of most of the radioactivity found on Earth, including virtually all of it that originates in the crust. I also pointed out that radiocarbon wasn't affected anywhere near as much by the same mechanism as the rest of the radioactive stuff (because carbon is frequently part of the biosphere, rather than in the crust itself.). Here's an idea of why preflood ages would have been as high as reported in the Bible.
As to why I wasn't more clear, for some reason I thought that all of you would know that I knew about uv light's effects and was considering it in my argument. In retrospect it was a very silly mistake to make.
Paul Watson wrote:
EDIT 2: DNA from RNA. Well, we kind of do see this on a regular basis every time a protein is stranscribed. It first goes through a process of transcribing from DNA to RNA. This is incredibly ineffiecitn and makes far more sense to be an artefact process from the original RNA genetic form than any other explanation so far advanced.
Firstly, I don't claim that the creation as it is now should be perfect. Genesis 3 and Romans 8 talk about the negative effects that sin has had on the universe itself.
Speaking of Romans 8, it speaks of creation's "bondage to decay". That seems similar, at least in principle, to the second law of thermodynamics at a time that mankind couldn't have known about it, at least in the sense of energy decay. Weren't many "scientific" people in the 1st century saying that the universe was eternal? Seems interesting, but perhaps I'm simply off on that.
Secondly, many times people only look at one aspect of something and say that it's inefficient. It may be the case that something could've been designed better in one area, but it would have been too much of a detriment to another area. Tradeoffs are always necessary to reach the best overall design.
Thirdly, I still haven't heard an explanation on where the genetic information embedded could have came from in the first place. Information invariable only comes from intelligence. Its existence in nature requires an intelligent source. All chemical affinity and self ordering gives you is unspecified complexity.
For instance, let's say you're driving down a highway. You see a license plate that says "5066 NM" and another that says "936 5768". You think nothing of them because you assume they're just a random combination of letters and numbers. Then you see a license plate that says "Batman" and think "Wow, that's the best license plate I've seen all day. I'm so happy to find another Batman fan out there.". Well, probably not because you probably don't obsessively look at license plates. Anyway, my point is that information only comes from intelligence.
Why should DNA be the exception? How could it be an exception? It seems exceedingly statistically unlikely, just like many other of the huge gaps I see in possibility for naturalistic theories of origins to work. All I see is appeal to probability, a nice logical fallacy that says that just because something "can" happen, that it eventually will.
George Sim Johnson wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
I agree that science itself can't have an agenda. However, you said that it's observed and reported. By whom? If it's by a person, there most certainly can be an agenda. Not that it always happens, but it can.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I'm not seeing any contradictions between those sites and the theory. Perhaps I've been confusing in how I paraphrase the theory, but it looks like he says that poling happened to the individual crystals themselves, rather than the entire structure.
Firstly, did you get the chance to look over Part I? He lists some objections to naturalistic theories there.
Secondly, list of predictions:
Spoiler:Are all of those known events?
You do not need any fancy radiometric dating to figure out the RELATIVE ages of fossils. Older stuff goes at the bottom. We know this because of how sedimentary rocks are formed, a process we can directly observe at every stage today. If you want to say this is circular, you'll have to say HOW its circular.
I still don't think that uniformitarianism (or even catastrophism) is as good an explanation as liquefaction. What I find to be circular is that it seems like geologists say "Hey, look at how well the geologic column supports evolution.", then biologists say "Hey, look how well evolution supports the geologic column." Stuff like that. It seems like naturalism is using naturalism to defend itself.
With a world wide flood you should have rocks and fossils going bottom to top from biggest to smallest. Mastodon skulls should be right next to triceratops skulls: they are not. Sedimentary rocks should go from congolmerates up to fine clays: they do not.
I've already addressed animals. As far as sediments go, you mean cyclothems are common and that's the approximate order of them. It seems like you're objecting by saying that all of the sediments in the world should be sorted by density, with all of the conglomerates in one layer and all of the fine clays in another. However, that's not what the theory calls for in the first place. To paraphrase, he says that liquefaction didn't happen evenly enough over large distances (in all dimensions) and that some sediments experienced liquefaction more than others. That would mean that sediments would be partially, but not completely, sorted.
You can see an orderly progression through time. This was the case even before we understood evolution: the thing that was causing the progression. How is it that science and geology independently arrived at the same answer. Physics came along later and added more confirmation. Why are these three different branches of science all giving us the same answer?
It goes into what I said about naturalism supporting itself. Isn't it a possibility that when naturalistic theories were formed that the scientists innovating them were biased and not wanting a theistic explanation? The first guy comes along and says that uniformitarianism is awesome. The next guy says that uniformitarianism and macro-evolution are awesome. Then the next guy says that all of that and the Big Bang theory are awesome. Then they get put in textbooks and taught to everyone as essentially absolute truth. Sounds like there was a possibility for scientific theory to go wrong here. If there was any possibility of bias people would be likely to form theories accordingly and to dismiss contradictory evidence. Hence confirmation bias. I'm more than happy to admit that creationists have that too. I just don't like naturalists being pictured as being immune by comparison.
I'm not saying that any of you are trying to imagine away God by using science to replace Him as necessary. All my position is is that it's possible that the innovators of naturalistic theory were biased in that direction and that many people ever since then have been blinded about the scientific facts by an educational and media system that are saturated by naturalistic theory.
How about the supposed out of order fossils?
That seems like a fair argument. I'll have to look into it.
He's saying Deuterium formed by large scale neutron capturing by Hydrogen in the subterranean water. Is there a better explanation for it out there, considering Deuterium burns so easily that little to none would have been likely to have survived the Big Bang?
Why is the Uranium 235 to Uranium 238 ratio so consistent across the world? Why do we still have so much Uranium as its half-life of 700 million years is relatively short? Why is Uranium that was supposedly part of the nebular cloud so highly concentrated in a few ores on Earth? Why are a few Uranium ores in Oklo partially depleted? Why is radioactivity confined to only the first few miles of the Earth's surface (based on levels of geo-thermal heat.)? See, questions are fun. :P
In case it makes a difference, he's not saying that Uranium formed directly. He's saying that many atoms fused into superheavy elements and then fission and decay took place, forming Uranium and many other elements. Superheavy elements was a result of the Proton 21 experiement in the Ukraine if I remember correctly.
Well, different people believe differently. I see no need to repeat my take on how different branches of scientific theory interrelate.
The geocentrists had their reasons for reading the bible the way they did too.
I'd like to see a geocentric theory based on the Bible that uses proper exegesis according to the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible and makes more sense than a heliocentric theory. I doubt one exists. I can't say the same for Young Earth Creationism over Old Earth Creationism.
Sorry if I'm being frustrating or controversial here, I'm just expressing my viewpoint. Thanks for the challenges everyone. :)
FWIW, here's an attempt at an explanation.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
That is all true, partially at least. It looks like the theory would explain partial sorting, but we should expect exceptions in order of deposition. Apparently the fossil record isn't perfectly arranged to match naturalism as we understand it, unless all of that is being misquoted.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thank you for the compliment in the first line. There are too many assumptions out there about atheists choosing to be evil and religious people being too dumb to know about science that are simply not fair.
I glanced at the paper and I'll take a more thorough look when I have the chance. How do you feel it's out of context? Do you think that Walt misrepresented the writer or the theory? Both?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'll grant you that that makes sense. I suppose that would render those examples rather "neutral" when it comes to this conversation.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
A benevolent God will allow His creations to figure these things out for themselves, rather than having to tell them specifically which animals are "an abomination unto Him." That's why He gave us eyes, and brains, and memories, and the ability to learn writing so that we could record our observations and thoughts.
Well, I'd think a benevolent God would warn us in the first place so that we didn't have to wait for people to die from food poisoning, for instance.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Yes, I know. That's why I put it in the general "they were right" category, rather than "this discovery was made because of this" category that I put ocean currents in. I gave the specific example there because I knew of it. I should have been more clear though.
Saint Caleth wrote:
The fact that the Bible gets the occasional fact about nature correct does not mean that you can start making up theories to support your preconceived notions, which is what hydroplate theory is. IT begins with the idea that the biblical notion of the flood is correct and then tries to contort various scientific principles to "prove" it. That is exactly the opposite of how scientific thinking works, as I and many other commenters have noted.
As far as I can see modern scientific thinking begins with denying the Biblical notion of the flood and then tries to contort various scientific principles to "prove" it. Everyone has assumptions and biases. Do you think that creationists have confirmation bias, but naturalists are somehow immune?
Saint Caleth wrote:
On the subject of poling, the external refrences that I found say that it can only happen within a crystalline domain and not between multiple crystalline domains. By symmetry, I mean essentially the shape of the crystal., not the arrangement of the individual small crystals in the quartz.
I'll need to take a look at that. Do you have links for your references?
Large salt deposits are not being laid down today, even in the Great Salt Lake.
Apparently he doesn't consider the Great Salt Lake as an example of a large salt deposit. He's likely thinking on a bigger scale here.
According to his theory the fossils weren't sorted according to density alone:
I'll grant you that saying that we don't have a scientific answer doesn't mean that we can't find one.
No. Dear gods... no. Rational science based on observable evidence has beaten theology at every turn. If you don't want to loose your religion entirely learn some humility and accept that you can interpret the bible incorrectly.
I very much have to deal with issues of pride and considering myself more intelligent than most people that I know (at least in real life), so I won't deny that it can be an issue. Yes, there's a possibility that I have misinterpreted the Bible, even though I could go into quite a lot of detail as to why I interpret it as I do. Do you think it is more prideful for me to stick to my position than for other people to stick to theirs? I'm curious as to your opinion because I don't want to be or come across as prideful.
I'll grant you that answers can often be found when there aren't any yet, and that some quotes express ignorance about exact mechanisms without undermining the principles behind them. However, there are still some very very large gaps between theoretical and practical understanding of many things that naturalism claims to explain (DNA once again comes to mind. Even IF (big if there) it could have formed from RNA, where did the information come from? Not to mention the origin of the universe itself.). How big does a gap have to be for an alternative solution to be considered?
Yes. Check out the section on Trenches and Plate Tectonics if you have time.
It wasn't a small area. It was the entirety of the Mid-Atlantic and Mid-Oceanic Ridges. It sounds like you're describing a huge cliff leftover from the subterranean chamber. That isn't predicted by the theory and wouldn't even make sense to be an effect from it.
He has a whole lot of predictions, a few of which have already been confirmed. He also has explanations that make quite a lot of sense. Sounds like a theory to me.
I'll try, but I don't always have the time. I did quote a bit of a relevant portion of the radioactivity chapter for you though.
According to the theory, radioactivity began by the piezoelectric effect in quartz in the crust during the flood. I don't remember Jupiter having quartz, so I don't see how mentioning Jupiter is relevant.
Also, the math on the generation of voltage seems to be ignoring that a 27% quartz structure won't get nearly the voltage he needs because the quarts is all spread out. Most of the electricity would be resisted by the rock.
I'll find a "real science link" to this, but the voltages in the granite during the flood exceeded granite's breakdown voltage, causing "lightning" in the granite.
Here's one. If I link you to something on the site, will you be able to check the references that go along with it? Most of his claims have some references and they're conveniently linked for his readers.
All I really have time to do is link you to his page on radiocarbon dating
I suppose the pillars were thick enough to support it, but according to the theory most of the weight from the granite was supported by the subterranean water itself.
Also, something i should add here: the moon. You've got essentially a hollow earth with a near infinite amount of pressure exerted outward from a 1,000 degree source of pent up water.. and then you're going to have that planet stretched and pulled by our abnormally large moon spinning around it, and it doesn't crack in even one spot?
Yes, tidal pumping was a major influence leading up to the flood, as he said it was (scroll down to "Three Common Questions". And it did crack in one spot, that's how the flood started according to the theory.
Kirth, I found the full paper and will look it over when I get the chance. Thanks.
Test out the theory itself step by step and double check his math I suppose. Really look to see how well conventional sciences can explain what he claims to explain and see what really makes more sense. At least for the unprofessional scientists like me, that sounds like a good way of doing it.
Well, I was kind of meaning that people today kind of know what the shapes of things inside the planet are by how earthquake seismic waves wash about the place and interpreting the readings that come from all the seismic stations scattered all about the place. Hence there's the good idea of a really big, molten ball of metal spinning around in the center giving us things like a magnetic north pole and the pretty effects that are the Northern lights. :)
Yes, I already knew that. I just didn't see where you were going with that line of thinking. :)
Here's a question for possibly Kirth Gersen to fill a hole in my knowledge. Does the interior core spin faster or slower than the stuff on top/around the outside? Also, is it this difference in the two's motions that causes the magnetic effect? Just something that's puzzling me. (^_^)
At the risk of being controversial I'll take this one. The inner core rotates slightly faster than the rest of the Earth. Earth's magnetic effect was started by many, many (many) magnetite crystals lining up in the inner core as the inner Earth melted. Or a dynamo effect in the outer core, depending on who you ask. :P
Of course, others have the right to disagree.
Thank you for taking it seriously. According to the theory:
Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 3/4 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.
To clarify: the inner Earth hadn't melted yet, so it was solid throughout if I understand the theory correctly.
BNW, I'll get to your posts in a day or so.
Um...you've advanced this statement before and I do believe you've been shown how and why it's not quite the stated case within the edifice that is science. Also...the idea/word you might be meaning to use in this instance is 'Hypothesis'? That which is an idea put forward for the rigorous testing of its merits until it has accumulated enough data/information/etc to become/qualify for the position of 'Theory'.
Yes, I meant hypothesis in that sentence. Thanks.
I have one other slight question about/for the site you graciously linked too...and that is how would one test some of the makers claims? How would one find the 'remains' of such a large volume (Where said water the person has made the claims it was so) be made of the earth's crust?
Well, for one thing he's made predictions, a few of which have already been confirmed.
I do believe there have been some measurements taken using the traveling times of seismic waves from earth quakes to show that, as an example, the earth is not hollow -As some fantasy writers would like to be such that their tales would have a place to exist. ;)
I'm not getting your point here.
It's ok, thanks for contributing.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't always have time to read the original source. Thanks for pointing out that it's out of context. I'll have to take a closer look at it. Do you have a link for it?
Saint Caleth wrote:
All you have done here is to name drop some scientific principles. It does not change the fact that this theory was developed solely in order to justify a preconceived notion, which is essentially exactly the opposite of the mindset needed to do real science.
First of all, everyone is biased and capable of letting that influence their interpretations. Everyone is capable of developing and advancing a theory from biased motivations, including many of the founders of the currently popular worldviews. Buffon, Lamarck, Hutton, Laplace, Werner, and Lyell all heavily influenced scientific theory toward gradualism and uniformitarianism, the foundations behind today's theories of origins. As far as I know, none of them were Bible believing Christians and they may well have been hostile toward Biblical thinking.
Secondly, let's see what happens when you do science based on the Bible. Matthew Maury is considered the father of oceanography. He saw Psalm 8:8 and decided to find "the paths of the sea" as they were so called. He then discovered ocean currents. So starting with the assumption of the Bible being true can lead to scientific discoveries.
Thirdly, let's see what the Bible has to say about science, even if nobody in particular that I know of used it for discovery:
The Bible says to circumcise infant sons on the 8th day. It was recently discovered that the platelet count of a newborn peaks on the 8th day.
Imagine how many lives were lost because of bloodletting, when Lev. 17:11 says "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That could have all been prevented by taking what the Bible has to say seriously.
Until the mid 19th century, conditions in hospitals were not very sanitary at all. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis saw that the doctors didn't wash their hands after handling the recently deceased patients. After they started washing their hands in running water (instead of a bowl) the mortality rate for delivering mothers dropped from about 30% to about 2%. Lev. 15:13 says to wash in running water to get rid of uncleanness.
I'm not saying that the writer of the Bible at that time knew WHY they were inspired to write those things, but what matters is that the Bible was right.
So, it seems as though the Bible and science get along just fine. Saying the Bible is wrong for saying that pi is 3 is ridiculous when you consider the fact that the verses in Kings were approximating the diameter and circumference. There's no reason that pi shouldn't be approximated as well given how the numbers were reported. Besides, pi is approximately 3, so the Bible isn't wrong, even if it's not as precise as some people arbitrarily insist it should be (no offense to whoever raised that objection. I don't even remember who that was.).
Saint Caleth wrote:
Just from looking over the source you cited briefly, I can see a few problems. The entire argument about the piezoelectric effect is predicated on the fact that quartz is piezoelectric and that quartz is the most common mineral in the earth's crust, comprising ~25% of granite. This is all true, however what is conveniently left out is that something which is only 27% quartz is not piezoelectric overall, since the process of creating charge from stress works because of the symmetry within crystal, symmetry which only exists in bulk quartz, not in a quartz-containing rock.
Did you read about poling (there's more about poling just below that section on the same page)?
By symmetry within crystal, do you mean the axes of crystallization aligning? If so, that's how it is:
How about the fact that electricity is generated in the crust during earthquakes?
Saint Caleth wrote:
Also I am not sure where the idea that bremsstrahlung radiation can produce neutrons is coming from, since the definition of bremsstrahlung radiation is when the kinetic energy of a charged particle is turned into electromagnetic radiation as it decelerates in an external magnetic field. For those of you keeping score at home, electromagnetic radiation is photons, not neutrons.
Bremsstrahlung radiaction can cause free neutrons:
Those neutrons being absorbed by the subterranean water would explain the abundance of Deuterium in the solar system quite nicely.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I will need to take a closer look at the arguments put forth by your source in order to make a more thorough explanation of what is wrong.
Please do. :)
I don't know. My guess is that you and him disagree on what large means. He should have been more clear though.
Discover magazine wrote:
Speaking of quotes:
Science of Evolution wrote:
I could fill a few quite large posts with nothing but quotes from scientists listing problems with current scientific theories. Maybe they don't explain things so well after all.
The water trapped under the crust would eventually explode the crust. Over a thousand years the water would attain the same temperature as the molten lava beneath it and burst through SOMEWHERE
What molten lava? That hadn't formed yet.
Ok you lost me here.
This is all I can quote and I'm too lazy to do the rest of it at the moment.
Well, when you're refuting an inaccurate version of the theory it's difficult to accept the answers. I'm only trying to help you understand the theory because it's clear that you don't from the questions that you're asking. That's perfectly fine and I appreciate you asking them, but you shouldn't expect me to just say "Oh wow, you're right, my bad." when you're not dealing with the theory properly, at least not as far as I can see.
How on earth did the carbon ratios get mixed up on every peice of tree, mammoth bone and fossil in the EXACT amount they would need to be to show gradualism?
Essentially, a global flood affected everything in the world very similarly. The same mechanisms affecting pretty much the same environment for the same amount of time would cause this.
Can you tell me why times of last separation correspond very well with the geologic time frames for the continents splitting?
I'll have to look into that.
Pillars made out of what exactly? Rock gets crushed under that much weight, and quartz melts under that much heat.
Where are these pillars? Where is the evidence that ANY of this ever happened?
Pillars made out of granite, the same material the rest of the crust was made of. They did get crushed as the flood progressed. They didn't get crushed beforehand because the extremely pressurized subterranean water supported much of the crust's weight. As to where they are now, according to the theory some of the rocks in the pillars were launched into space to become meteroids, asteroids, and comets. That would explain the formation of chondrules in meteorites.
As the plates crashed at the end of the continental drift phase, they broke into many pieces. I'm not sure why they're still getting taller, I'll look into it.
Kirth, he gives explanations behind all of his points about subduction. For example:
Points 2 and 3:
What do you think?
Andrew Turner wrote:
Also (and here's an old, necrotic equine argument), why would an all-powerful entity go to so much trouble? If it's transcendent of the universe, then it's transcendent of physics (and everything we know and understand of the nature of reality). It can do anything it so desires. Anything
I found your example humorous, but it's a little long so I left it out of the quote. Anyway, I see God as being extremely intelligent and rational (bit of an understatement :P). I see Him doing it the way He did for the same reason it took Him 6 days to create stuff instead of doing it all at once: he uses natural mechanisms to bring things about whenever "possible". Many of the miracles in the Bible weren't "miraculous" in the sense that they couldn't happen. It's more that they were timed PERFECTLY, and if God hadn't directed it that way, the timing would have been off. Example: the walls falling at Jericho. It was likely an earthquake, but a really really well timed one.
In summary, I think God uses natural means whenever He "can".
Saint Caleth wrote:
Here's a quote from the section on radioactivity. HP = Hydroplate theory, CE = Chemical Evolution theory.
Seems scientifically testable to me. In fact it all has been tested.
I get the very distinct impression that you don't know the theory itself very well yet, including any of the mechanisms of how he says it happened.
For instance, you asked how come the pressure of an ocean above the crust would alter pressure. It wouldn't, that's not the mechanism. I'd suggest rereading about the piezoelectric effect. As to it not happening on Jupiter, first of all it's not pressure from an ocean alone that he says did it. Second of all, I don't imagine Jupiter has enough quartz for it to have happened there.
You also don't understand how the rock floated on water. It didn't. The subterranean water was completely sealed under the granitic crust, and pillars connected it to the chamber floor. The crack started forming at the surface of the crust and expanded at both ends due to tension until it lapped the world (we know it as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Mid-Oceanic Ridge). After that, the only place the water left the subterranean chamber was at the crack itself. The rest of the continents were completely waterproof and under constant water pressure, just as you said would need to happen for the continents to drift.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
He's using evidence to support a scientific theory, and if that theory happens to match what the Bible said happened historically, so much the better.
Please read this section. The Bible and evolution / big bang theory simply are not compatible. You don't have to accept all of this science stuff if you can't understand it, but I hope you reconsider your position about what the Bible has to say about science.
Also, Walt says that he doesn't know things at several points at the website. Also, he has references to where he gets his information. He has huge pages filled with quotes, solved equations, and tons of other things to support his case.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Good point. Thanks. Even so, does my point still stand?
So, so true. They had statistics on their side due to your extra loyalty card. What more evidence did they need? :P
Sounds like it was a good game though.