|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2016 : 13:05:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Creationists are like a modern day version of The Flat Earth Society.
|
"Amen" to that...  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/05/2016 13:05:27 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2016 : 21:22:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Um, at least one Flat Earth Society still exists as non-satire...
|
Pity.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2016 : 06:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Rapid Cooling
If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.
[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]] |
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
| Edited by - Pahu on 05/11/2016 06:35:11 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2016 : 08:07:19 [Permalink]
|
LOL, Pahu, those claims have been thoroughly debunked. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html
"...measurements of the amount of radioactive uranium, thorium, and potassium in the Earth and in meteorites have shown that all the heat flowing from the interior of the Earth outward can easily be accounted for by radioactive decay, although gravitational energy and latent heat of crystallization probably are also important."
Before you post a claim, run it by this list first:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
|
| Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 05/11/2016 08:08:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2016 : 09:07:39 [Permalink]
|
| How far from reality does one have to be to use arguments even other similar deluded people clearly understand it should be an embarrassment to use and realizes it makes them look bad by association? If I typed that question into google I wouldn't be surprised to find a link to this thread. With those behind talkorigins.com being demonstrably bat shit crazy, to consider Pahu the same would be an understatement. That gentlemen is what we have here. Carry on. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 10:52:56 [Permalink]
|
Moon Recession
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume. [For details, see pages 571–574.]
Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.
[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences46.html][color=blue] From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/color][/url]]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
| Edited by - Pahu on 05/18/2016 10:54:33 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 12:35:46 [Permalink]
|
Pahu. Another old and debunked argument. And really, you have given no indication that you have even read the supplied links to you. You seem to be a one way street. Anyhow...
The creationist version of Recession of the Moon debunked.
Young earth creationists (YECs) often claim that the recession of the moon, at its current rate of recession (how fast it moves away from the Earth), would have been too close to the Earth to survive at some point in its scientifically accepted 4.5 billion year lifespan, which indicates a young universe.
Some of these claims may stem from early scientific confusion. For example, Slichter 1963 (using a simpler Earth-moon model) found that the Moon couldn't have receded from Earth for more than 1.4–2.3 billion years.[2] Later research in the 1970-80s (discussed below) improved this model and found that recession could indeed have occurred for 4.5 bn years. Yet even the very first version of this argument, by Thomas Barnes in 1982,[3] ignored this relevant research, preceding to cite Slichter. And creationists, over 30 years on, still claim scientific failure.[4] If so little research is done on this relatively simple subject, creationist scientific honesty in general is seriously undermined.
Ultimately, research shows that the recession of the moon is not inconsistent with a 4.5 bn year age. |
Also debunked here:
The Recession of the Moon
and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
Introduction
One of the common arguments made in support of young-Earth creationism is that the dynamic age of the Earth-moon system (as determined by the physics of the Earth-moon tidal interaction) is too young to support a multi-billion year age for the system. In this article I will (a) review the basic physics of gravity and tides, (b) review the history of theoretical models for Earth-moon tides, (c) review the paleontological evidence relevant to the history of the Earth-moon system, and (d) demonstrate that the combination of theory and observation refute the young-Earth creationist arguments, with reference to specific young-Earth arguments and their specific failures. This is intended as a review for readers not versed in physics and math, so the arguments are presented as non-technically as possible. There are references to more technical work, for those who are interested in following up any of the arguments presented here as accepted assertions.
While this article is intended as a refutation of yet another ill conceived young-Earth argument, the introductory reviews do not refer to creationism at all. Therefore, the article should work just as well as an introduction to the physics of the evolution of the Earth-moon system, even for those readers not interested in the issue of creation vs. evolution. |
And for your audio visual pleasure, incase you are too lazy to read the above debunkings of another creationist claim, here's The Receding Moon Argument Debunked on youtube. Surely you can make at least that much effort to learn something.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2016 : 11:01:42 [Permalink]
|
Hot Moon
A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.
a. “[The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.
u In 2011, the Moon was discovered to have a small liquid core. [See Renee C. Weber et al., “Seismic Detection of the Lunar Core,” Science, Vol. 331, 21 January 2011, pp. 309–312.]
u “Actual values of heat flow determined on the Moon at the Apollo 15 and 17 sites were two and three times higher than had been predicted.” Short, p.183.
b. Dr. Kent Davey developed a 40,000 finite element model that considered a body of water 1/2 mile thick at temperature 150°F only 1/2 mile below the Moon’s surface. After 10,000 years that water’s temperature would only have decreased 53°F. Kent Davey, personal communication, 9 November 2015.
c. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface soon after the global flood. Because the flood was recent (only about 5300 years ago) excess heat should still be present. [See "When Was the Flood?" on page 480, Figure 164 on page 297 and "Did the Preflood Earth Have a 30-Day Lunar Month?" on page 580.]
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences47.html]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
| Edited by - Pahu on 05/25/2016 11:08:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2016 : 12:27:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100! |
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Science progresses. It's your alleged faith that is necessarily static and unchanging, Pahu.
Oh, and it wasn't "evolutionists" who first decided that the Earth must be very old, it was mostly Bible-believing naturalists who were trying to find evidence for the creation. The scientific evidence overwhelmed their religious hopes. They didn't "assume" an old Earth, they concluded it, even though they didn't want to.
Comte de Buffon, James Hutton, John Phillips, and Charles Lyell all concluded an Earth much older than 10,000 years. These guys predate Darwin and "evolutionism."
Oh, and good job demonstrating the nonsense that happens when you take two events distant in time and simply draw a line between them and assume a steady rate. The consensus age of the Earth hasn't wavered more than one percent since 1956. Yet your earlier statement would have us believe that it has gone up by a factor of 16 since then (sixty years would be four doublings). According to you, scientists today should be telling us the Earth is 72.8 billion years old, but they're not. Why not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2016 : 17:16:29 [Permalink]
|
Pahu:
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. |
Utter nonsense. And you know what? That statement is so completely wrong I'm not even going to bother finding you a link (or hundreds, if not thousands in this case) to the science that debunks that statement because you don't read them anyway. But I will tell you this. There is an overwhelming consensus of geologists, cosmologists, astronomers, paleontologists and biologists that would find that statement downright hilarious. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2016 : 06:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Young Comets
As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html#wp1069425 ]
a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System,” Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.
b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups,” Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.
c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.” Sagan and Druyan, p. 210.
However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto,” the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.
d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.
If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [See Wetherill, p. 470.]
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences48.html ]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2016 : 09:50:21 [Permalink]
|
Pahu:
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. |
Again. Nonsense. And in truth, even most creationists today accept the old earth model because the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming. What the YEC people are doing is trying to fit their "science" to support a single ancient book, no matter how ludicrous working science that way is. Science goes where it goes. Genesis is not a history book or a science book. Taken as literally, beyond allegory, it's demonstrably wrong.
I think that does it for me. I'm starting to wonder just how long Pahu is going to play this game. He's still quoting Walt Brown with no indication that he has any interest in looking beyond his hero, and checking out the claims himself. He does not respond to our posts. He just moves on to the next Walt Brown claim. I will not take part in this exchange because there is no exchange. Pahu for any practical purpose, is trolling SFN without a thought of his own. Pahu needs to participate in any discussion about the claims he copies and pastes from Walt Brown's site, or at least show some interest in the counter arguments that have been provided here.
Any duffus can copy and paste arguments from other sites, but without a willingness to examine those arguments, what's the point? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2016 : 04:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim... |
No distinction between biologists and astrophysicists. Of course, when one thinks that the vast majority of scientists in fields that study deep time are simply wrong, such distinctions must not matter.For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. |
Repeating incorrect claims doesn't make them more true, Pahu. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Science Disproves Evolution
