[nolidad]

Appeal to conclusion (and without reference at that). Please describe the actual errors found and how they were discovered.

Well the full report is coming out shortly so I guess you just gotta wait.

And then you can go to TalkOrigins and find out why ICR is full of poo. But if you (or anyone here) would like to discuss the problems directly, I'm game.

The I guewss each individual is going to have to decide who is right or worng in theoir own judgment.

Cite it. Cite your other study too, Noli! I google searched both, found nothing, suspect that you are making stuff up out of thin air. Note that I'm not actually wanting to discuss this with you (I vowed no more discussions with Noli), I just want to see you put your money where your mouth is.

I already posted the website that showed RATE finished its 7 year study and is going to publish its finding. They also are going to hold a seminar if you want ot go.

as for garbage into oil:

http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=205
http://www.inq7.net/lif/2003/sep/12/lif_27-1.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004...gies4apr04.htm
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue395/labnotes.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ze0603.asp?p=1

here are but a few of the many websites showing that it is already being done commercially even!!!!!

HMHMHMHM those dollar bills taste pretty good.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I already posted the website that showed RATE finished its 7 year study and is going to publish its finding. They also are going to hold a seminar if you want ot go.

I had no trouble finding the answersingenesis page boasting about how this stuff was reported in their "peer-reviewed" journal (which, incidentally, is not peer reviewed). I am more interested in the actual study, not your obvious parroting of the well-known and oft-maligned creationist site.

as for garbage into oil:

http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=205
http://www.inq7.net/lif/2003/sep/12/lif_27-1.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004...gies4apr04.htm
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue395/labnotes.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ze0603.asp?p=1

here are but a few of the many websites showing that it is already being done commercially even!!!!!

None of the websites say it's being done commercially. Moreover, you said:

Stanford Univeristy took a ton of garbage- and with high pressure and twenty minutes turned it into a barrel of low grade crude. —Noli

Not a single factual statement (I bolded them) in that sentence is true, Nolidad. Explain yourself.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Qingu

None of the websites say it's being done commercially.

From Nolidad's first link:

Pouring Oil on Troubled Water
Thermal depolymerization is just now coming into commercial use, though similar processes have been known for decades. The problem was that they were always too expensive to operate; it cost more for the fuel to decompose the garbage than the resulting materials were worth. The inventors of TDP claim that it is highly energy-efficient—better than 85% in most cases. If that is true, and if it continues to be true on a large scale, then TDP may eventually be able to produce oil more cheaply than drilling, and get rid of garbage as a convenient side-effect—or vice-versa, if you prefer.

That may be what he's referring to... and it doesn't say it's about to be done commercially, but just now coming into commercial use... which would imply to me current, though minimal, use.

Mark

[JerryLove]

Well the full report is coming out shortly so I guess you just gotta wait.

So you don't have jack-squat to back up your claims... as usual.

Well the full report is coming out shortly so I guess you just gotta wait.

But then you are telling people which one to choose, but then you can't defend, or even paraphrase most claims. In short your just spouting rhetoric.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Qingu

None of the websites say it's being done commercially.

Also, on Nolidad's second link, it reads:

The report on the extraction of oil from garbage coincidentally appeared the same month as the other one in Discover magazine. The technology involved is called thermal depolymerization process or TDP. It has already been demonstrated in Philadelphia, United States, and industrial machines using the oil have been installed in Missouri, site of the processing plant.

Perhaps this too could be construed as commercial use.

Mark

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Also, on Nolidad's second link, it reads:

The report on the extraction of oil from garbage coincidentally appeared the same month as the other one in Discover magazine. The technology involved is called thermal depolymerization process or TDP. It has already been demonstrated in Philadelphia, United States, and industrial machines using the oil have been installed in Missouri, site of the processing plant.

Perhaps this too could be construed as commercial use.

Mark

Only if you did not read the rest of the article. It's being tested. Perhaps Nolidad did not read the article he cited, which, incidentally, was not given as an answer to my inquiry in the first place (recall that he said a Stanford university study was done and gave very specific details about what that study entailed. We are all still waiting for that cite, Noli.)

More broadly, this is a biochemical process. I don't see anything in any of the citations that says this can be accomplished with just water and pressure.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Only if you did not read the rest of the article. It's being tested. Perhaps Nolidad did not read the article he cited, which, incidentally, was not given as an answer to my inquiry in the first place (recall that he said a Stanford university study was done and gave very specific details about what that study entailed. We are all still waiting for that cite, Noli.)

More broadly, this is a biochemical process. I don't see anything in any of the citations that says this can be accomplished with just water and pressure.

*nods* I see your point... just a thought on the whole "nothing says they've gone commercial" comment... thanks for the reply... I'll be reading on.

Mark

[nolidad]

Only if you did not read the rest of the article. It's being tested. Perhaps Nolidad did not read the article he cited, which, incidentally, was not given as an answer to my inquiry in the first place (recall that he said a Stanford university study was done and gave very specific details about what that study entailed. We are all still waiting for that cite, Noli.)

Here is asnother article about the same company cited before by me:

The machinery to do this resembles oil refineries, where the waste material is super-hydrated, with temperatures around 500 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of about 600 pounds for about 15 minutes. Once the organic soup is heated and partially depolymerized in the reactor vessel, the slurry is quickly dropped to a lower pressure which releases about 90 percent of the free water. Dehydration via depressurization is far cheaper in terms of energy consumed than is heating and boiling off the water. At this stage, the minerals are shunted to storage tanks and the remaining concentrated organic soup gushes into a second-stage reactor similar to the coke ovens used to refine oil into gasoline. The reactor heats the soup to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit to further break apart long molecular chains. Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot vapor flows up, condenses, and flows out from different levels: gases from the top of the column, light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from the middle, water from the lower middle, and powdered carbon from the bottom. Gas is used on-site to heat the process, while the oil, minerals, and carbon are sold to the highest bidders.

Notice at the end: sold to the highest bidder that makes it commercial as did some of the cites I posted showed that tey were selling the oil!

Sorry I forgot to add the word heat to water and pressure--but that is all they use--water-heat and pressure to turn the organic waste to oil.

[Godreignforever]

Originally Posted by 0000

through your studies how old do you believe the earth is?

um scientist believe its like 10 billion years old or soemthin then peopel have gone through the bible and dated it between 7 and 10 thousand years old and i tihnk its probably 7000 years old

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14

"The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area."

So even though this a flood that covered the entire earth, you somehow thing that it only occured in noah's little place? Why would God put Noah on an ark for a year if he only flooded one part? Why would God put Noah on the ark period? Why not tell NOAH TO MOVE? He destroyed the entire earth with the flood, because EVERYONE was corrupt besides Noah. No evidence for a flood? Look around! Grande canyon? I wonder how that formed over millions of years... it couldn't have! I could post tons of verses on this, and evidence and such, but I have a terrible headache right now and tomorrow school starts, so good night and God bless everybody.

Originally Posted by burningtr33

Amen!

There are some evidences i kno that support a global flooding.

On top of Mt Everest there are fossils of sea shells. How could a little sea critter go on top of the mountain unless something carried it up there.

If you leveled out the earths dry land we would be under 1 mile of water

Well thats all i can remember.

He put noah on the ark to protect him from the flood of the area seeing as man hadn't spread out on the earth yet and was still in that area, so where would he move to? Anyway maybe the flood would be too big to move from on foot? Yes he destroyed all of the earth that had inhabitants. Not all of the earth.

The grand canyon easily could have been formed in thousands of years, have you heard of erosion?

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

He put noah on the ark to protect him from the flood of the area seeing as man hadn't spread out on the earth yet and was still in that area, so where would he move to? Anyway maybe the flood would be too big to move from on foot? Yes he destroyed all of the earth that had inhabitants. Not all of the earth.

The grand canyon easily could have been formed in thousands of years, have you heard of erosion?

I heard some argument that normal patterns of erosion could not have caused the Grand Canyon... I'll try to dig around and see if I can't find anything on it.

Mark

[JerryLove]

Here is asnother article about the same company cited before by me:

The "company" is here , and the scenerio is offered as a hypothetical (the paragraph before begins "Imagine this:")

And it's from 2003. In two years there appears to have been nothing creating a reality for this scenerio... though it would be nice to think that there was some potential there.

um scientist believe its like 10 billion years old or soemthin then peopel have gone through the bible and dated it between 7 and 10 thousand years old and i tihnk its probably 7000 years old

About 4.5 billion. It's hard to look credible alling them wrong when you don't even know what they are saying.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

I heard some argument that normal patterns of erosion could not have caused the Grand Canyon... I'll try to dig around and see if I can't find anything on it.

Mark

Couldn't find jack... so I retract. ...for now.

Mark

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You will? Then why are you not a geocentrist like Calvin and Luther? After all, the Bible says:

Gen 1:6
And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.

And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.

The Bible says in plain Hebrew that there is a solid dome (heb. raqia, which literally means "that which is hammered out") that covers the earth. God set the sun, moon, planets and stars in this dome and called it "Sky." There is water above this solid dome as well. Of course, unreliable science contradicts this--let's see if you'll stick with what the Bible says.

First I don't think this contradicts science in any way.

1. It says that the Earth's sky is basically everything from the original seas to the edge of the universe, which is unknown as to what it is make of, water perhaps?

2. It doesn't say the Earth is in the middle of the universe, it says that it was created first, or at least what was earth at the time was created first.

Job 9
he who removes mountains, and they do not know it, when he overturns them in his anger; who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble; who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars; who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the Sea;

Do you believe the earth has pillars? The Bible says it does, Daniel. Science contradicts it, but who really trusts science?

I know this was meant for Daniel but still.

1. This verse could be interpreted in several ways
a. Your way obviously is the most literal
b. These pillars could be miles under the earth holding the foundation (top soil and magma) up. (Preposterous I know but it is a way.)
c. These pillars could be the pillars built by men
d. The word pillar here could have been used to just show exageration on the fact that there was an earthquake.
2. Everyone should trust science, to a degree. (Read my awesome new sig that I'll put on a few minutes after I post this.)

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;

Do you believe the earth is a "circle," Daniel? Note that the Hebrew word is circle, not sphere or ball. Note also that God stretches out the heavens like a tent--the same raqia which divides the earth below from the waters that Gen 1 says lurk above the sky. Of course, science says the earth is not really flat. But why trust science over God's word, Daniel?

Again I know it was meant for Daniel but still.

1. Again there are several ways to interpret this.
a. If you look at the earth from space you see a circle.
b. The continent they lived on was roughly circular, not knowing that there were other continents. (Plate Tectonics)
c. All known land at the time was a circle.
2. Who says the worlds flat?

Now. If you want to take the flood legend in the Bible seriously (this is now in Science, after all), why don't you start by telling us where all this water above the dome of the sky is, per Gen 1:6 (see my previous post). This is where the floodwaters come from, right? We know that there must still be water up above the sky, becuase God has to close the windows of the sky to make the rain abate:

Gen 8:2
and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

So before we even get into how Noah could fit all the animals in the ark, how he could physically collect all the animals, how freshwater fish and plants could survive, etc., let's keep the focus on cosmology. I want to know where these waters above the sky are. After all, the Bible says that's where the flood came from, right?

The water above the earth could be considered the edge of the universe because we don't know what it is. Maybe water? (as i stated earlier)

The flood waters came from the sky. (ie. clouds)

The part about the closing of heavens can easily be interpreted as the rain stopping, as it appeared to them, the heavens closing. All the animals? how about all the known animals in the area. (Most other Christians disagree with my interpretation of this area of Genesis.) Obviously the fish survived in their lakes around the world. Plants survived in that same way.

[JerryLove]

2. It doesn't say the Earth is in the middle of the universe, it says that it was created first, or at least what was earth at the time was created first.

So Martin Luther and John Calvin don't have accurate views of what the Bible says?