Is our world condemned?

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Meh.

I'm sorry that you had to find out this way. Learning that your religion isn't the science that you were told it was can be demoralizing.

So, now you realize that you never were a scientist of any type, that your devotion to your faith did not transform you into a thienth geniuth, and that your OBEDIENCE to your leftist echo chamber was a really stupid thing for you to allow to happen.

Now you know why you have no definitions. Religions don't have definitions.

Religions do have definitions, but they too stem from that initial circular argument.

Religions are also described in words, which have definitions, regardless of whether they are describing a religion, science, or anything else.

In Robert's case, he has made up numerous buzzwords and even tried to define a few of them. As you note, however, it has nothing to do with anything in science, which he denies. He is simply trying to thound thmart. He has even used them to try to justify his math errors.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining and math error...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining and math error...

I already know you don't understand chemistry, Robert. You don't have to keep trying to prove it.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining and math error...

I already know you don't understand chemistry, Robert. You don't have to keep trying to prove it.

I already know you are an incredibly TENACIOUS TROLL, who will probably keep prolifically piling pathetic parrot poop posts to your 24,000 at this website.

Into the Night wrote:Whining accomplishes nothing, Robert.

"Will the Robert, knowing no other way, not simply whine and spam again?" — Master Po, Kung Fu

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Meh.

I'm sorry that you had to find out this way. Learning that your religion isn't the science that you were told it was can be demoralizing.

So, now you realize that you never were a scientist of any type, that your devotion to your faith did not transform you into a thienth geniuth, and that your OBEDIENCE to your leftist echo chamber was a really stupid thing for you to allow to happen.

Now you know why you have no definitions. Religions don't have definitions.

Religions do have definitions, but they too stem from that initial circular argument.

Religions are also described in words, which have definitions, regardless of whether they are describing a religion, science, or anything else.

In Robert's case, he has made up numerous buzzwords and even tried to define a few of them. As you note, however, it has nothing to do with anything in science, which he denies. He is simply trying to thound thmart. He has even used them to try to justify his math errors.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining, irrelevancy...

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The water produced from burning coal is irrelevant to climate CHANGE, because water falls to the Earth. It doesn't rise far enough in the atmosphere to add any pressure on Heaven.

Climate cannot change.
There is no 'pressure on Heaven'

Spongy Iris wrote:
Your theoretical model of the Universe is totally wrong and should be discarded.

Enjoying the breezy day?

Spongy Iris wrote:
The Tunguska blast was not caused by a meteor. This theory should be discarded too.

It was caused by a meteor. It's remains have been found. Apparently mostly nickel, copper, and iron.

Spongy Iris wrote:
While the Tunguska coal deposits have not been actively mined very much, there are still many coal seam fires that result from these deposits. The coal burned is what increased the pressure enough to crack Heaven, causing the massive blast.

There was no coal mining.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I stand corrected that it caused the deaths of 3 people, in addition to incinerating and flattening more than 800 square miles of trees, and turning nightlight to daylight well beyond the epicenter.

About 33, with 3 logged deaths, the rest presumed dead.

Meteors can and do strike the Earth. I suggest you go visit Meteor Crater in Arizona. There are plenty of other craters as examples as well.

Meteors can and do explode before striking the Earth as a single meteor, leaving no crater, but leaving damage under the explosion.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The water produced from burning coal is irrelevant to climate CHANGE, because water falls to the Earth. It doesn't rise far enough in the atmosphere to add any pressure on Heaven.

Climate cannot change.
There is no 'pressure on Heaven'

Spongy Iris wrote:
Your theoretical model of the Universe is totally wrong and should be discarded.

Enjoying the breezy day?

Spongy Iris wrote:
The Tunguska blast was not caused by a meteor. This theory should be discarded too.

It was caused by a meteor. It's remains have been found. Apparently mostly nickel, copper, and iron.

Spongy Iris wrote:
While the Tunguska coal deposits have not been actively mined very much, there are still many coal seam fires that result from these deposits. The coal burned is what increased the pressure enough to crack Heaven, causing the massive blast.

There was no coal mining.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I stand corrected that it caused the deaths of 3 people, in addition to incinerating and flattening more than 800 square miles of trees, and turning nightlight to daylight well beyond the epicenter.

About 33, with 3 logged deaths, the rest presumed dead.

Meteors can and do strike the Earth. I suggest you go visit Meteor Crater in Arizona. There are plenty of other craters as examples as well.

Meteors can and do explode before striking the Earth as a single meteor, leaving no crater, but leaving damage under the explosion.

There is pressure on Heaven, and my assertion remains, the pressure above the Tunguska coal deposits was too great, because it caused a crack, which let in winds that are way stronger than the typical breezy day.

There have been coal seam fires resulting from the Tunguska deposits, even if coal has not been mined there in modern times.

There is no meteor crater. There was no meteor that hit Tunguska on 6/30/1908. Nickel, copper, and iron deposits do not rule out a crack in Heaven's glass. But a missing crater does rule out a meteor strike. Scientists have even tried to explain the missing crater away, by speculating the meteorite came so close to Earth to incinerate and flatten +800 miles of forest, and then flew back into space. The absurdity of such speculations should not stand. The meteor strike explanation should be discarded.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is pressure on Heaven,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and my assertion remains, the pressure above the Tunguska coal deposits was too great,

Spongy Iris wrote:
because it caused a crack, which let in winds that are way stronger than the typical breezy day.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There have been coal seam fires resulting from the Tunguska deposits, even if coal has not been mined there in modern times.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is no meteor crater.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There was no meteor that hit Tunguska on 6/30/1908.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Nickel, copper, and iron deposits do not rule out a crack in Heaven's glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But a missing crater does rule out a meteor strike.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Scientists have even tried to explain the missing crater away, by speculating the meteorite came so close to Earth to incinerate and flatten +800 miles of forest, and then flew back into space.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The absurdity of such speculations should not stand. The meteor strike explanation should be discarded.

Im a BM wrote:
Space debris is not all created equal.

Im a BM wrote:
The meteorites that leave craters, big and small, are made of mainly of heavier elements like iron, nickel, and copper.

Im a BM wrote:
They can go out in a blaze of glory, but they don't do what chunks of ice can do.

Im a BM wrote:
A lot of that space debris that crashes into the atmosphere is pieces of ICE, made of frozen water, H2O. Maybe a tiny bit of space dust of other materials, but basically at least 99% ICE. Don't look for craters or traces of nickel, copper or iron if the object that came in at thousands of kilometers per hour was a big chunk of ice.

Im a BM wrote:
Superheated to nearly plasma, ice can blow up in a spectacular explosion before it ever reaches the ground.

Im a BM wrote:
It can flatten trees for miles around with nary a crater in sight.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't leave any DNA evidence in the form of heavier metals.

Im a BM wrote:
Some folks in Russia with a dashboard camera got excellent footage of an ice chunk meteor blowing up before it hit the ground.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is pressure on Heaven,

Nope. God and Jesus Christ have a good handle on conditions there.

Spongy Iris wrote:
and my assertion remains, the pressure above the Tunguska coal deposits was too great,

No known coal deposits.

Spongy Iris wrote:
because it caused a crack, which let in winds that are way stronger than the typical breezy day.

What crack?
Was it repaired? Who repaired it?

Spongy Iris wrote:
There have been coal seam fires resulting from the Tunguska deposits, even if coal has not been mined there in modern times.

No known coal deposits.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is no meteor crater.

Because the meteor exploded before it hit.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There was no meteor that hit Tunguska on 6/30/1908.

It exploded before it his.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Nickel, copper, and iron deposits do not rule out a crack in Heaven's glass.

No glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But a missing crater does rule out a meteor strike.

The meteor exploded.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Scientists have even tried to explain the missing crater away, by speculating the meteorite came so close to Earth to incinerate and flatten +800 miles of forest, and then flew back into space.

Synthesis. The meteor exploded.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The absurdity of such speculations should not stand. The meteor strike explanation should be discarded.

The meteor exploded.

Im a BM wrote:

Some folks in Russia with a dashboard camera got excellent footages of an ice chunk meteor blowing up before it hit the ground.

Spongy Iris wrote:
An exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have lit up the skies in London.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And an exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have kept the night skies glowing in Siberia for the next 3 days.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
An exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have lit up the skies in London.

It didn't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And an exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have kept the night skies glowing in Siberia for the next 3 days.

It didn't.

Im a BM wrote:

Some folks in Russia with a dashboard camera got excellent footages of an ice chunk meteor blowing up before it hit the ground.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
An exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have lit up the skies in London.

It didn't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And an exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have kept the night skies glowing in Siberia for the next 3 days.

It didn't.

After the 6/30/1908 Tunguska blast, the night skies shone abnormally brightly for several days, an intense glow, people across Europe and Western Russia reported being able to read newsprint at midnight without artificial lighting.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This spectacular atmospheric illumination, often referred to by eyewitnesses as looking like "tongues of fire", was observed from as far away as Great Britain and Ireland.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
An exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have lit up the skies in London.

It didn't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And an exploding meteor in Tunguska would not have kept the night skies glowing in Siberia for the next 3 days.

It didn't.

After the 6/30/1908 Tunguska blast, the night skies shone abnormally brightly for several days, an intense glow, people across Europe and Western Russia reported being able to read newsprint at midnight without artificial lighting.

No, it didn't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This spectacular atmospheric illumination, often referred to by eyewitnesses as looking like "tongues of fire", was observed from as far away as Great Britain and Ireland.

No, it wasn't.