Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 211 of 222 (528871)
10-07-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 10:19 AM


Re: Moderator Request
So you are not willing to address any of the issues or give us the time in the video that the evidence you claim is presented? I am not surprised. This is classic fundie behaviour.
It amazes me that the mods allow you to not follow the forum rules, you make personal attacks and yet some of the best posters on this whole site are disciplined because you refuse to present ANY evidence whatsoever.
I guess we need to learn how to deal with a troll. We should just not feed you.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:19 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 212 of 222 (528874)
10-07-2009 10:49 AM


Summation Time
Please post your summations now. Each person should post only a single summation. Please do not post responses to any messages, discussion has ended.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 213 of 222 (528960)
10-07-2009 4:55 PM


Two methods enter - one method leaves.
There are a number of ways of trying to understand the universe.
One of those ways is to observe the universe, attempt to derive equations about how it works and then use calculations to hypothesize more information about the universe which can then hopefully be checked using an independent method.
Another way is to observe the universe, attempt to derive equations about how it works - and then slavishly adhere to them when independent methods of checking show inconsistency, and proclaiming that any contradictory pieces of evidence are the ones that are somehow wrong and not the equation used to describe the part of the universe in question. Bonus points if the assumptions in the equation cannot be justified or supported with any evidence whatsoever.
I prefer the former. Calypsis4 prefers the latter. I'll leave it to the reader to reach their own preference.

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 222 (529057)
10-08-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 8:31 AM


Calypsis4 responds to me:
quote:
But numerous sightings of volcanic activity strongly suggest otherwise.
Really? Where? Why is it that whenever we actually look at the places where this supposed volcanic activity takes place, we don't actually find any signs of lava flow but rather find the exact same topological features from previous images of the same spot?
Note: I am not denying that people saw something. What is being denied is that it was volcanic activity.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 8:31 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(2)
Message 215 of 222 (529070)
10-08-2009 5:21 AM


The original post in this case has been criticised (rightly so in my opinion) for being plaigarised from some other source, rather than being an accurate representation of events actually transpiring between the poster and "a Princeton astronomer". If you can look past that, you come to the issue of the moon's recession, and the OP's bold statement that:
The evolutionary time scale as it concerns the age of the moon is in error.
The very first response (from Rrhain) quite directly addressed the OP's concerns with the moon's recession rate, providing several explanations for this apparent discrepancy.
Despite several posters directly addressing the points raised in the original post, Calypsis4's responses for a time consisted of nothing more than bare refutation without support, for example:
"The Geophysicists who say the universe is 4.6 billion yrs old are in error. The facts speak otherwise. I have only just begun."
We waited, as this was apparently only the beginning, but we continued to see comments like:
You need to do some reading. Evolutionist assumptions are that the moon has been a dead celestial object for nearly 3 billion yrs. But numerous sightings of volcanic activity strongly suggest otherwise.
Ok so, here's a new area that we have to address with the OP. Ok so there was a bit of side discussion about the possibility of volcanic activity on the moon, during which time Calypsis4 became increasingly defensive, making comments like:
I have seen what God can do. So have many of my comrades.
I think we can all agree that these sort of statements (at least on the science forums) do not contribute anything to the discussion.
This continued however, with blatant preaching:
But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not.
Calypsis4 continued to bounce back and forth between discussion the moon's recession rate, volcanic activity, the age and origin of the moon, and the almighty Lord Jesus Christ.
During this process he continually announced things like "Your posts are of no interest to me" and apparently put several of these people on ignore. This isn't how a debate works.
A particularly telling comment came very early from Calypsis4:
The real reason that the moons (as well as Halley's comet and other celestial objects) are in backward motion from all others is because Almighty God set them in motion that way. He did this purposely so that observing man would see that natural forces would not/could not do this.
This argument really confuses me. If "Almighty God" had really wanted mankind to see that natural forces couldn't account for the universe at large, couldn't he have just arranged some stars in the sky so they spelled out "copyright (c) Yahweh 0 BC" or something like that? This is the same kind of thinking that spawns claims that fossils were put there by the devil to mislead mankind.
Calypsis4 continually dodged the question of dated moon rocks and the issue regarding whether or not K (from the original post formula) is a constant, and chose instead to exercise a lot of special pleading, culminating in the oh-so-clever trick of giving us 2 jpegs and saying "Show me how this" insert jpeg 1 (gas clouds) "became this" insert jpeg 2 (Earth's moon).
After valiant efforts by Onifire and others to get Calypsis4 to address some specific issues regarding the actual science discussed in the original post, he continued to fail in this respect, to the point that a fellow creationist (Dokukaeru) had to remind him not to engage in "bearing false witness and attacking people personally".
Conclusions
In the end, I am left with certain conclusions:
(a) I am convinced that the story as related in the original post did not happen personally to the poster as is stated, but is rather plaigarised from another source.
(b) I am convinced that the issue of the moon's recession has been adequately addressed by the scientific community and that whatever discrepencies might exist are within the usual margins of uncertainty that exist in all of science.
(c) I am convinced that the original poster holds one set of standards regarding the admissibility of HIS evidence, and an entirely separate set of standards on the admissibilty of the evidence of others.
Regardless of my disapproval of the attitude, methods and demeanour of Calypsis4, I would nonethess offer him my thanks for an entertaining thread that (at leaast initially) had some actual science in it.
Edited by Briterican, : trimmed some hedges

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 216 of 222 (529091)
10-08-2009 8:05 AM


Additional Information
I came late to moderation of this thread only after Calypsis4 announced he was done, and only because of a request posted at Report discussion problems here: No.2. I hadn't read the opening post nor most of the thread and so hadn't read the early suspicions that the OP was not Calypsis4's own. But I've checked it out and found Calypsis4's original source for the science part of the OP (not the story about the Princeton astronomer). Here are some links in case someone hasn't already posted them.
Point 1 from the OP can be found at various places on the web, among them here as footnote 8:
The bulk of point 2 can be found here beginning on page 67:
*If* this is new information to anyone then you may post another summation if you wish.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 10-08-2009 9:40 AM Admin has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 217 of 222 (529113)
10-08-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Admin
10-08-2009 8:05 AM


Re: Additional Information
I came late to moderation of this thread only after Calypsis4 announced he was done, and only because of a request posted at Report discussion problems here: No.2. I hadn't read the opening post nor most of the thread and so hadn't read the early suspicions that the OP was not Calypsis4's own. But I've checked it out and found Calypsis4's original source for the science part of the OP (not the story about the Princeton astronomer). Here are some links in case someone hasn't already posted them.
Point 1 from the OP can be found at various places on the web, among them here as footnote 8:
http://creatio.../the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night#r8
The bulk of point 2 can be found here beginning on page 67:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_65-70.pdf
*If* this is new information to anyone then you may post another summation if you wish.
What in the heck are you talking about? I never even LOOKED at True/origins in this discussion! I listed my sources so why is it even necessary to say such things? They are, in order: 1. Talk/origins(NOT True/origins) 2. Creation Wiki 3. Dr. Don DeYoung 4. Dr. Jonathan Henry 5. George Darwin. Each sentence/paragraph I quoted from them is in parenthesis except what I received from DeYoung himself but I clearly said that he was the one who gave me the information. He explained to me the problems with evolutionary interpretation of the age of the moon.
Here is the ironic thing; my opponents harped on the constant k and the '6th power of separation' repeatedly. What they don't know is that that formula was not developed by DeYoung, Jonathan Henry, nor any other creationist. It was developed by (gasp!) George Darwin, the son of the 'great' Charles Darwin! (The Tides, Houghton Mifflin, p. 274, 1898).
Now notice in cavedivers first post,
And this guy is a professor of physics??? Does he even understand what generates the lunar recession? It's not the Earth-Lunar tidal forces, but the Earth's actual tides...This process is highly dependent on the tidal bulges, their size, and their rotational period. And he uses a constant 'k' in his diff equation
Then this:
Your own stupid equations in your opening post accept that the reason for the recession is tidal forces.
Cavediver made a fool of himself. It was Darwin's formula and it was he who called 'k' a constant. Yet the discussions I saw never even suggested that that constant was absolute. Once I determined that this guy was a smart alec and wouldn't approach the matter without a condescending attitude I decided not to give him the time of day.
What displeases me about this is the intellectual dishonesty of the evolutionist position. If the constant 'k' is not absolute then we've only measured a change in it by extrapolation and mathematical guesswork and not by observation. Yet I pointed out from this
...the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104.
So if from the evolutionist standpoint the 4 cm recession of the moon has been the same for about a billion yrs then what would make them think that it has varied? So who is telling the truth? Should we believe talk/origins & cavediver or the evolutionists Sonett, Kvale, Zakharian, Chan, and Demko? But in this we have the same problem that exists in so many pronouncements of evolutionary believers about the facts, a la differing radiocarbon dates for the same specimens by way of example.
Last night my new thread on the 'The Flood, the fossils, & the evidence' was shut down by the administrator in charge because, as he claimed, 'Calypsis is all over the place' blah, blah, blah. No, I was not 'all over the place' I was attempting very hard to answer the questions, but everything I said was right on target as far as the subject of the thread was concerned. I hadn't even covered half of what I wanted to post on the subject because the evidence I have is so extensive. Not only so but in the first few days I posted here I was suspended four times even though I was brand new and had not learned the 'ropes'. No wonder there aren't more creationists posting on this website.
I am weary with the attitude I see here. No matter what the evidence or quality of that evidence against evolution, it is brushed aside with trivial explanations and shallow thinking, all of which reveals a bigotry against the facts that are revealed honestly and forthrightly.
You may suspend me or ban me from EvC for my statements but it doesn't matter to me any longer. So if you wish your evolutionist majority to be arguing with thin air, then feel free to take that action.
Best wishes.
Edited by Calypsis4, : addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Admin, posted 10-08-2009 8:05 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by dokukaeru, posted 10-08-2009 3:35 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 222 by Admin, posted 10-09-2009 7:39 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(3)
Message 218 of 222 (529133)
10-08-2009 11:54 AM


Summation
I did see those pictures in Calypsis4's thread on flood and fossils, but I never had a chance to weigh in on them. To be honest, I had wanted to say that while it was nice for Caly to include photos of his family vacation, vacation photo's do not constitute evidence or even counter evidence. And that is indicative of the greater problem that Caly has with evidence.
The fact is, the recession rate of the moon isn't always stable over time. It changes over time such that we need to take many measurements and use the average rate in discussions. We have shown how the moon recedes and why it changes over time. We have shown the theory and linked to sites where he could study the math and the ideas. However, Caly has consistently rebuffed all attempts of getting him to address the evidence we have presented. It had gotten to the point where the discussion devolved from a debate about facts to where Caly simply stated, "God did it." He is not being honest with himself or us.
Science is a process by which we gain a better understanding of the Universe around us. To deny one field of science without evidence is to deny all science, even those that impact our daily lives. I wonder how many creationists are willing to fly in an airplane built on faith? To argue scientifically, a person needs to show why the current theory is wrong or inadequate and how the evidence better supports another theory. Creationists have consistently been inadequate in arguing against scientific theories because at the core of their argumentation is the same belief Caly holds - that "God did it."
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our moon is about as old. The moon likely collided with Earth putting it in orbit around the Earth. Tidal friction and gravity causes the moon to recede, and the continent drift theory explains why the moon's recession rate has not always been constant. If you want to debate this theory, show why the evidence supports your theory better than it does the current one and how your theory will predict any new observations. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting your breath.

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 219 of 222 (529171)
10-08-2009 2:05 PM


Summation
I have been allowed one summation on this thread. So here it is.
The OP states that the time frame of 4.5 Billion years is wrong, due to DeYoung's equation... And specifically because of DeYoung's equation.
DeYoung's equation uses k as a constant. But if we can all agree (even Calypsis) that it wasn't always constant, then DeYoung's conclusion of 1.4 Billion years is wrong.
We then foucs on other physicist equations and the concensus is 4.5 Billion (give or take a few weeks or so).
That, coupled with lunar rock dating, which also matches the 4.5 Billion year time frame, leads any honest person to conclude that DeYoung's time frame of 1.4 billion years is wrong.
The OP is shown to be wrong many times by many different souces.
Peace out...
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 220 of 222 (529196)
10-08-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
10-08-2009 9:40 AM


Summation=0
This thread is not about the moons origin age or recession. It is about trying to disprove evolution using ignorance.
This is evident from the fact that topic creator using the word evolution, evolutionist or some other form of the word 40 times in 72 posts.
Even if we accept Deyoung's (fallacious)argument that the moon can only be 1,300,000,000 years old, this still is orders of magnitude older than the YEC's 6000-10000 years old.
The ToE would hold true for any amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 10-08-2009 9:40 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 221 of 222 (529343)
10-09-2009 2:44 AM


Summation
Incredibly. Calypsis insists that k, which was explicitly based on a rate of the moon's recession, is a constant, yet his entire point was that rate was changing. A constant that changes? The mind boggles -- OK, only the mind that tries to make sense of things, as opposed to the creationist mind.
It is tempting to say that Calypsis has been the typical creationist, but that would not be entirely true. Rather, in all the threads that he has participated in (all of which, if I am not mistaken, he had himself started), Calypsis has been the archetypical creationist. Presenting bare assertions devoid of any actual evidence. Ignoring all actual evidence present to him. When presented with sincere questions and requests for clarification, he would either completely ignore them, go incredibly "stupid" and respond as if he had absolutely no comprehension at all of the simplest English sentences (eg, being completely unable to understand a direct request from another creationist for the exact point in a video clip where a particular claim was being made -- and that is despite the same request having been made repeatedly by other participants as well, including an admin), or flood the thread with extraneous crap (what a local creationist calls "rabbit trails", which are intended to distract the opponent from from the actual trail, and which he admonished his followers to not fall for but which he himself would employ all the time). If one were inclined towards conspiracy theories, an anti-religion atheist could not have devised a better persona to thoroughly discredit Christianity than Calypsis4.
Has anyone wondered about his name? Calypsis (Calypsis - Wikipedia):
quote:
Calypsis ( --- kalupsis or kalypsis.) is the act of covering, concealing, hiding, or veiling. In kinesics, the science of body language, calypsis is the act of covering or concealing certain parts of one's own body. Calypsis is a type of closed, negative or defensive body language used to express disapproval, discomfort or fear in certain situations. The term usually refers to the act of covering or concealing one’s face, or sexually attractive parts (including certain sexually attractive clothing), especially in the presence of someone who is a sexual turn-off (extremely anerotic), or someone who is uncomfortable to be around. The term calypsis was derived from the Greek ---kalupto or kalypto, meaning to cover, to veil, to hide, or to conceal. Calypsis is a type of closed or negative body language often expressing extremely anerotic feelings, sexual abhorrence, scorn and contempt toward someone viewed as a sexual turn-off in terms of physical appearance, in terms of personality and social behavior, or both. The term calypsis can also refer to a bride placing a veil over her face during her wedding while preparing to marry her groom, or to a criminal concealing his/her face with a ski mask while perpetrating a burglary, robbery, or sniper attack. Calypses (plural of calypsis) are done in many different ways by various people in various situations for various reasons (including for defensive purposes), and are often done subconsciously like most other forms of body language.
OK, I will deem it obvious that the sexual meanings were not intended. But that does still leave the question: Calypsis4, just what the hell are you hiding?
Calypsis4, if you would like to explain your name, then there's a thread for that. I could try to seek it out for you, but then you would just ignore it anyway, right?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link in final paragraph. "They call me the seeker...till the day I die".

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 222 of 222 (529375)
10-09-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
10-08-2009 9:40 AM


Re: Additional Information
Hi Calypsis4,
Summations have been posted, so before I close this thread I thought I'd respond to your concerns.
Calypsis4 writes:
You may suspend me or ban me from EvC for my statements but it doesn't matter to me any longer. So if you wish your evolutionist majority to be arguing with thin air, then feel free to take that action.
Permanent suspension, known as banning at some boards, is only reserved for the most persistently egregious behavior. You're a member in good standing at EvC Forum, and I don't see any reason why that should change. Moderators here usually only employ short suspensions, and usually only because they feel their requests or concerns aren't being addressed. Short suspensions are a means of getting a member's attention who seems to be ignoring moderation.
The behavior that is causing concern among moderators is your tendency to ignore rebuttal about one piece of evidence to instead introduce a new piece of evidence, to the degree where by the end of one of your threads many pieces of evidence have been introduced and few discussed. EvC Forum was created for the express purpose of making possible through moderated debate something that is rather rare on the web, productive discussion on contentious issues, and failure to maintain focus on a point works against this goal.
If evolution is false then you've already won half the battle, the gathering of evidence. You've obviously gathered a great deal of evidence. But the other half of the battle is sticking with discussion of a piece of evidence long enough to make clear how it falsifies evolution.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 10-08-2009 9:40 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024