thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2)

 

series:
	Creation vs Evolution : thunderf00t ... did you actually say that? (part 1) thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2) Trivium, Quadrivium 7 cætera : Thunderf00t on futile questions Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham

"thunderclouds can hold up to about four inches, that is about ten centimetres of water"*

No more? Where do we get that from? How is it measured? By rain fall after it? I would like to know, because this is one of the facts that may be facts although they sound phoney.

I am actually methodologically curious. Not just what science is saying about nature, like in this case the thickness of a cloud counted in water level - you said four inches - but how come science is justified in saying it. If it is, that is. You see, when I was still an evolutionist, and mistook evolution for science, at age eight and somewhat beyond, I got an evolutionist book on the origins of man with not a little information both on what makes scientist believe Australo-Habilis-Erectus-Heidelberg-Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon form a series (brain volume deduced from inner cavity of skull), but also on its investigation techniques like ¹⁴C. Then at age twelve, when already a Creationist, ma gives me this gorgeous book by Edgar Harold Andrews, a Swedish translation of an earlier edition than the latest of his From Nothing to Nature. It has the standard creationist debunking of radioactive dating techniques as applied to the pre-historic. Look it up if you ignore it. Since then I am pretty wary of bad techniques of investigation.

Now, how do you deduce that a cloud has four inches of water if you compress theoretically the aerosol to a running level collection of liquid?

One method I could imagine would be to measure the downpour, which is done with those rain-metres or whatever you call them in English. Such and such a contraption catches rain as it is falling without letting it escape into the water source layers below the ground. It is transparent or has a transparent side. It has a scale in either millimetres or in inches and lines. Such and such a very heavy storm cloud looses all its water over a determined area of land and at any point you measure "four inches" and note it as a record.

Now, for one thing it is not a record, except locally, in so far as there are floods.

For another there is the displacement of the cloud which thus spreads its rain over a greater area than its own horizontal limitations.

And then there is the question whether the cloud really lost all of its water onto the ground or if some stayed rather in the air, even after it clears up. I am not at all sure this last thing is a valid refutation of this measure of the "four inches of water", but I would like to know your answer to it.

And as to previous, that may be one of the things that have been taken into account already by meteorologists. People whom, excepting the forecasts, I respect as scientists. When it comes to forecasts, they are not knowers, only, at best, good guessers.

But you maybe thought it was something you could calculate from "thickness of aerosol as compared with height of cloud as compared with thickness of water as pure liquid without the aerosol gives ..." by the Regula de Tribus. I am very far from sure that approach is very good. However, your point could be made (or unmade) by measuring the background radiation on sunny and cloudy days.

However, even if so, I recall pretty much not being councelled to put on sun screen lotions on cloudy days, preserving it for the sunny ones.

Even if he was in error, it was not an unfathomable one, nor incompatible with teaching high school science for fifteen years.

Every teacher has his forte and other areas where he will rely on hearsay if his professional training does not send off his factoid alarm bells ringing.

I am not quite convinced about your speculation in order to refute another point by Hovind though: that falling ice would be burning hot before it reached the ground. I mean if it heats, it melts, and dissolves into an aerosol and if it still heats after that it evaporates fairly high up, and at least then slows down, right?

The point about gas pressure in blood vessels being higher before the flood than after, as made by Hovind (something he deduced from the water canopy theory as an explanation of beings growing larger and partial explanation of them growing older before flood), was supposedly refuted by you insofar that "if so all would have had blood vessels just bursting out of the body as soon as water canopy was removed", but the adherents of the Hovind theory do usually hold that the Arc, apart being a device for floating above the sea rather than drowning below it, was also a pressure chamber, ensuring that the gas pressure in the blood vessels evened out without any divers disease in any being present inside the box it actually formed.

I suppose you were so eager to refute mister Hovind, that you did not wait until posting your refutation until after he had on same video answered it: or that he did not answer it on that video but on another one.

By the way, you are making this answer to some of his arguments while he is in prison, but do you happen to have videos posted on youtube while Kent Hovind was making these points? And while he had the full freedom to answer "your" answers? "Your" meaning not specifically answers by you, thunderf00t, but by anyone in Atheist-Evolutionist or even Theistic-Evolutionist communities who was obviously as shocked back then at Kent Hovind's arguments as you are?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Public Information Library
Georges Pompidou, Paris
St Albert the Great
15-XI-2012




*From, I think, still this one:

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 6).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg&feature=channel&list=UL