Water cannot be transformed into good wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter greylorn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greylorn

Guest
In order for water to be changed into wine, carbon atoms must be created. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen— H[sub]2[/sub]O. Ethanol, an essential ingredient in all booze requires carbon. Its formula is C[sub]2[/sub]H[sub]6[/sub]O. But wine is more than a mix of alcohol and water— it includes complex tannins, esters, and unidentified exotic hydrocarbons, A fine wine will contain more than 1000 different chemicals, all sensitive to temperature and pressure. As any pretentious snob knows, fine wines will be destroyed by excessive temperature.

It is chemically impossible to manufacture ethanol from water because water has no carbon. However, it is atomically possible. Three water molecules could supply the necessary atoms. If two Oxygen atoms (each with 6 protons and electrons) were stripped of a pair of protons and electrons, they would become two Carbon atoms (4 protons and electrons). Unfortunately the extra parts do not disappear into la-la land, but will probably end up as a pair of Helium atoms, plus the excess binding energy which held the original Oxygen atoms together.

That excess binding energy is described by the simple equation, E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

Much of this excess energy will be released as ordinary heat. It turns out that the splitting of Oxygen into Carbon and Helium will have a similar effect as the splitting of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into other stuff. This will cause a sudden and violent release of nuclear energy, commonly referred to as nuclear fission, as what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the nuclear reduction of only a few pounds of material.

A 10-gallon cask of water, enough to finish off a good party if it was transformed into wine, would weigh about 83 pounds. I’m too far away from my last atomic physics class to do the calculations, but given that a good wine needs at least 10% ethanol, converting 10% of a 10 gallon (83 pound) keg requires the nuclear fission of about 8.3 pounds of matter, roughly the amount in the Nagasaki bomb,

The heat would have surely ruined the wine.
 
The heat would have surely ruined the wine.
Haha! That is so funny. 🙂 Reminds me of the engineer’s calculation about Santa Claus. read it here… Of course you made a serious mistake in your calculations. You forgot to take the “magic” into account. As we all know nothing is impossible if enough “magic” (a.k.a. “miracle”) is employed!
 
It also chemically impossible to manufacture a **person **or purpose or love from atomic particles…
 
Someone who could arrange for his own virgin birth, or overcome the entropy of his own dead body; would find the dumping of a few exojoules of waste heat to be entirely beside the point. :)🙂

ICXC NIKA
 
Someone who could arrange for his own virgin birth, or overcome the entropy of his own dead body; would find the dumping of a few exojoules of waste heat to be entirely beside the point. :)🙂

ICXC NIKA
👍👍

Mt 19:26:
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

What is “chemically impossible” is simply not a barrier for our God.

Peace
James
 
We shouldnt waste our time on responding to either of them: our timed be more productively spent elsewhere.
Theyre not going to take any notice of anything we say. Were just feeding them.
 
“Religion: heterodoxical theism and physics”

And there is the answer as to why this thread was started in the first place.

"To those who believe, no explaination is needed. To those who do not believe, not explaination is possible."
 
It also chemically impossible to manufacture a **person **or purpose or love from atomic particles…
In the sense that 20 years ago you may have deemed a handheld mp3 player containing thousands of tracks chemically impossible?
 
"To those who believe, no explaination is needed. To those who do not believe, not explaination is possible."
The first part is true. The second part is patently false. But, of course the explanation cannot be a fairy tale. What is really funny that you think God is so impotent, that he cannot supply a proper explanation. And you think you “respect” God, when you have such a low opinion about him?

You know your kind of “argument” (which is all over the place around here) is strongest indication and the most convincing evidence that God does not exist. After all, if he existed, he would have enough self-respect to come donw and kick the living daylight out of his “followers” who spread such demeaning assertions about him! To have the audacity and say that God is unable to provide the necessary explanation - wow…
 
Obviously this is thread was designed to challenge the notion that Jesus turned water into wine. Is such an event impossible? Hardly.

What is meant by the term “turning” in regards to the event of “turning water into wine”? Among other things, it can mean transformation or replacement.

1) If God can create something from nothing, he can easily create something from something. God, therefore, can transform water into wine. This is my own personal assessment of what Jesus did at the Wedding at Cana.

2) I have a jug of water in my kitchen and I, without the benefit of omniscient divine power, can “turn” it into wine in five seconds. I can do this by simply dumping out the water and filling the jug with wine from a bottle of wine I happen to have in the kitchen as well. In terms of this second point, if I (as well as just about anybody) can replace water with wine, so much more could God. God, lacking physical limitations, could do this in a miraculous fashion.

Concerning #2, the term “turning” is less of a description of the specific process and more of the term people use to describe the result. Jesus never said “I shall turn water into wine”, he simply told the servants to fill the stone jars with water, and from the jars they drew forth good wine. The miracle could have been one of replacement, but people simply referred to it as a “turning” (i.e., a transformation).
 
In order for water to be changed into wine, carbon atoms must be created. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen— H[sub]2[/sub]O. Ethanol, an essential ingredient in all booze requires carbon. Its formula is C[sub]2[/sub]H[sub]6[/sub]O. But wine is more than a mix of alcohol and water— it includes complex tannins, esters, and unidentified exotic hydrocarbons, A fine wine will contain more than 1000 different chemicals, all sensitive to temperature and pressure. As any pretentious snob knows, fine wines will be destroyed by excessive temperature.

It is chemically impossible to manufacture ethanol from water because water has no carbon. However, it is atomically possible. Three water molecules could supply the necessary atoms. If two Oxygen atoms (each with 6 protons and electrons) were stripped of a pair of protons and electrons, they would become two Carbon atoms (4 protons and electrons). Unfortunately the extra parts do not disappear into la-la land, but will probably end up as a pair of Helium atoms, plus the excess binding energy which held the original Oxygen atoms together.

That excess binding energy is described by the simple equation, E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

Much of this excess energy will be released as ordinary heat. It turns out that the splitting of Oxygen into Carbon and Helium will have a similar effect as the splitting of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into other stuff. This will cause a sudden and violent release of nuclear energy, commonly referred to as nuclear fission, as what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the nuclear reduction of only a few pounds of material.

A 10-gallon cask of water, enough to finish off a good party if it was transformed into wine, would weigh about 83 pounds. I’m too far away from my last atomic physics class to do the calculations, but given that a good wine needs at least 10% ethanol, converting 10% of a 10 gallon (83 pound) keg requires the nuclear fission of about 8.3 pounds of matter, roughly the amount in the Nagasaki bomb,

The heat would have surely ruined the wine.
Another case of “if I can’t figure out how God did something, it means God couldn’t do it”.:rolleyes:
God does not limit his actions to what humans are capable of explaining.
 
My favourite part of all this is that it cannot be turned into “good” wine.

Maybe bad wine, but definately not good wine! :tsktsk:

…gonna join you… 🍿
 
You know your kind of “argument” (which is all over the place around here)…
Well Spock, you what else is “all over the place around here”? You.

For someone who claims to be an atheist you spend an incredible amount of time on a Catholic forum discussing the God that you don’t believe exists. Moreover…
Of course you made a serious mistake in your calculations
Speaking of calculations, according to your CAF profile you currently have an average posting rating of 2.32 per day. You have been a member on CAF for just over 2.5 years, and at the time I am typing this you have made 2,149 posts, which means an average of 859.6 posts per year. I shall now assign an average time frame of fifteen minutes for each post (and this includes the time involved reading other people’s material prior to responding as well as the time for previewing your own posts before submitting). That means you spend 214.9 hours per year on CAF alone (and goodness knows how many other Christian forums you participate on).

I personally do not believe in good luck charms, although many other people do. But I have spent exactly zero minutes debating the validity of good luck charms on the internet or elsewhere. So the nature of your obsession with Catholicism escapes me, except to consider the idea commonly paraphrased from Shakespeare, “Methinks thou dost protest too much”.

It is not my intention to sidetrack this thread (although I think this discussion has pretty much run its course). So I am just putting this out there as “food for thought” and to point out that the Catholic parish in your area is probably starting up its R.C.I.A. series around this time.
 
In order for water to be changed into wine, carbon atoms must be created. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen— H[sub]2[/sub]O. Ethanol, an essential ingredient in all booze requires carbon. Its formula is C[sub]2[/sub]H[sub]6[/sub]O. But wine is more than a mix of alcohol and water— it includes complex tannins, esters, and unidentified exotic hydrocarbons, A fine wine will contain more than 1000 different chemicals, all sensitive to temperature and pressure. As any pretentious snob knows, fine wines will be destroyed by excessive temperature.

It is chemically impossible to manufacture ethanol from water because water has no carbon. However, it is atomically possible. Three water molecules could supply the necessary atoms. If two Oxygen atoms (each with 6 protons and electrons) were stripped of a pair of protons and electrons, they would become two Carbon atoms (4 protons and electrons). Unfortunately the extra parts do not disappear into la-la land, but will probably end up as a pair of Helium atoms, plus the excess binding energy which held the original Oxygen atoms together.

That excess binding energy is described by the simple equation, E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

Much of this excess energy will be released as ordinary heat. It turns out that the splitting of Oxygen into Carbon and Helium will have a similar effect as the splitting of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into other stuff. This will cause a sudden and violent release of nuclear energy, commonly referred to as nuclear fission, as what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the nuclear reduction of only a few pounds of material.

A 10-gallon cask of water, enough to finish off a good party if it was transformed into wine, would weigh about 83 pounds. I’m too far away from my last atomic physics class to do the calculations, but given that a good wine needs at least 10% ethanol, converting 10% of a 10 gallon (83 pound) keg requires the nuclear fission of about 8.3 pounds of matter, roughly the amount in the Nagasaki bomb,

The heat would have surely ruined the wine.
Come on GL,
I think your spending too much time on wikipedia and are becoming a wiki-head! You know darn well that the carbon came from the wooden cask and He simply slipped a carbon and 2 hydrogens into the wood alcohol to convert it to ethanol, added a few tannens and walla! wine. I bet you drank worse.

Do you realize that, these kinds of posts incites the Vulcan guy with the pointy ears, and the flapping tongue to come out of the woodwork with hand-waving pronouncements devoid of all intellectual content. Quit it now! Get back to your book. I’m getting tired of waiting formy autographed copy.

Yppop
 
The first part is true. The second part is patently false. But, of course the explanation cannot be a fairy tale. What is really funny that you think God is so impotent, that he cannot supply a proper explanation. And you think you “respect” God, when you have such a low opinion about him?

You know your kind of “argument” (which is all over the place around here) is strongest indication and the most convincing evidence that God does not exist. After all, if he existed, he would have enough self-respect to come donw and kick the living daylight out of his “followers” who spread such demeaning assertions about him! To have the audacity and say that God is unable to provide the necessary explanation - wow…
“Religion: None”

Enough said.

Bye-bye. 🙂
 
“Religion: None”
Ah, an attempt to wiggle out. This was your assertion: “To those who do not believe, not explaination is possible.” Can God provide a sufficient explanation, or not? You don’t need to answer, of course, and I don’t expect you. Just curious.
 
Well Spock, you what else is “all over the place around here”? You.

For someone who claims to be an atheist you spend an incredible amount of time on a Catholic forum discussing the God that you don’t believe exists. Moreover…

Speaking of calculations, according to your CAF profile you currently have an average posting rating of 2.32 per day. You have been a member on CAF for just over 2.5 years, and at the time I am typing this you have made 2,149 posts, which means an average of 859.6 posts per year. I shall now assign an average time frame of fifteen minutes for each post (and this includes the time involved reading other people’s material prior to responding as well as the time for previewing your own posts before submitting). That means you spend 214.9 hours per year on CAF alone (and goodness knows how many other Christian forums you participate on).

I personally do not believe in good luck charms, although many other people do. But I have spent exactly zero minutes debating the validity of good luck charms on the internet or elsewhere. So the nature of your obsession with Catholicism escapes me, except to consider the idea commonly paraphrased from Shakespeare, “Methinks thou dost protest too much”.

It is not my intention to sidetrack this thread (although I think this discussion has pretty much run its course). So I am just putting this out there as “food for thought” and to point out that the Catholic parish in your area is probably starting up its R.C.I.A. series around this time.
Interesting that you are so “obsessed” with my presence. Not that it is any of your business, but I am comfortably retired, and like to find out about other people’s belief systems, and I have time to do so. Maybe I spend about an hour a day on this website on the average. Why does that “bother” you? I still have 23 hours a day to engage in other interesting activities.

Also, very very rarely I do find someone, who is an intelligent person, with whom I can conduct a mutually rewarding conversation, even if we part without agreeing, and those very rare instances justify my efforts - in my own eyes of course. If my presence happens to bother you, I am sorry, but you are under no obligation to read my posts (the “ignore” button is your friend), but if you do, then don’t complain. It is your fault, not mine. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top