Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 31 of 91 (310987)
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


I told him all that cellular stuff and he told me that I'm contradicting evolution because if the cells were immune to predators, and they had nutrients then they were perfect. And since we aren't perfect then that means we got worse. Uggghhhhh
I gave him several links to resources talking about the earth's long age... and here was his (long) response:
quote:
Proof of a Young Earth
K you wanted facts on the earth being younger then a you think here is some facts
(1) The sun is shrinking in mass. Since this is true this means that over billions of years the sun would of shrunk enough to the point where the gravitational balace would be upseted. If that is umbalanced then the earth would be not capable of supporting life. SO in total the sun is shrinking in mass. So according to your measures of time it is not possible.
(2) There is a thing called the coriolis effect. This is proportionate to the speed of the earths rotation. Do to these prevailing winds, the sahara desert is the process of desertification, Expanding approximately 4 miles per year. Calcualtions based upon the rate of the Saharas expansion shows that he earth cannot be billions of years old cause the the oldest desert in the world is only 4,000 years old.
(3)The population itself is evidence of a young planet. In 1810 the population was 1 billion. within less then 200 years the population grew to 6 billion. This meants that according the rate at which population grows at a certain rate according to poplation size. Through this study the earth can't even be a million years old.
(4)In the past 140 years studies have shown that the magnetic field is at a rate of decay, and according to the decay rate the earth could not be 1 billion years old cause. That the total life spand of the magnetic field would amount to aproximately 25,000 years. Do to the consistant rate of decay makes the earth not even possible of being old at all.
(5) The moons gravitation pull on the earth has been slowly causing the days to lengthen. Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth. With this in mind the eath/moon relationship could not possible be more tan 1.2 billion years old, and geologic evidence indicates that it is much younger. geologic evidence is not the carbon dating or anything along those lines but the evidence I have provided to you.
I just supplied 5 aspects as to how the earth cannot be as old as you claim. As a matter of fact they all point to the earth being the sambe proxiamte age. The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. These prove that it can. Look it up. These peices of evidence were not found on the web but in a book. All these aspects were founded by scientists. You supplied one reason why which is inaccurate in which I supplied an article earlier that stated how all of them are invalid accept the carbon-14. Which has obviously been proven false cause there is 5 methods i named which there are more. That refute the findings of carbon-14.
I need help. I guess I got in over my head on this one. But also, you guys said it's a good learning experience, so you're teaching me. And in turn I'm teaching him, lol. Thanks for all of your help.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-11-2006 10:01 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 10:11 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2006 10:20 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 10:29 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 5:40 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 05-11-2006 5:42 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2006 7:13 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 PM SR71 has replied
 Message 60 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-12-2006 5:17 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 88 by Cthulhu, posted 05-15-2006 4:26 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 32 of 91 (310991)
05-11-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


Dumbing down is hard
I need help. I guess I got in over my head on this one. But also, you guys said it's a good learning experience, so you're teaching me. And in turn I'm teaching him, lol. Thanks for all of your help.
Here is the problem.... it's not that you are in over your head... it's that you are trying to explain calculus to someone who never got past addition.
Unfortunately, one often has to resort to analogies and metaphors to teach these kind of people about more advanced concepts.
I have never met anyone (online, in person, etc) who understands evolution and still doesn't accept it.
You will find that close to 100% of the people who don't accept evolution simply don't understand it. (and often they don't understand much of the more basic biology underlyling the theory either).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 91 (310997)
05-11-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


What you are facing is called the Gish-Gallop. It's the old tactic of throw the plate of spaghetti on the ceiling and see what sticks. When you bring up one thing they just dismiss or ignore what you say and toss out a dozen more wild pitches.
Patience is needed. Take one issue and keep hitting on that one issue. Ignore the rest until the first is settled.
But understand, you are unlikely to make any progress.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 91 (311001)
05-11-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


I'd advise looking at talk.origins for these. The "Index to creationist claims" should have many of them, usually with useful links.
TO go over the points.
1) Meaningless wihtout the actual figures - which he doesn't give.
2) The expansion of the Sahara is not solely due to the coriolis effect (human activity was a big factor). I'm pretty sure that the Sahara is not the oldest desert either. Finally it is fallacious to argue that the age of the oldest currently existing desert sets a maximum age of the Earth.
3) The population argument is complete rubbish. A series of technological developments (such as agriculture) have improved our ability to produce food and to exploit the earth. Since our population is dependant on our technology more than time any argument that population provides a time limit is nonsense.
4) This is false.
5) I'm pretty sure that this is also false - but if it were not it would only mean that the earth was without the moon up to that point in time.
So 2,3 and 5 are all fallacious - the arguments don't provide a real maximum age for the Earth. 4 is outright false. And 1 simply lacks the numbers needed to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 91 (311002)
05-11-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


Dr. Dino Rides Again
Somebody’s been cribbing Hovind, again. Even AiG doesn’t use some of these any more. Talk Origins has a nice collection of essays refuting most of what your friend posted. No point in reinventing the wheel. Besides, you might find that reading the responses are a good way of learning about some of the basic concepts.
1. Shrinking sun
2. Sahara desert
3. Population
4. Magnetic field
5. Moon’s gravitation
That should give you enough to go on. I really hope you can convince your friend to come over here to our site. It’d be easier to refute this nonsense without going through “third party” middleman. No offense intended, it just seems an awkward way of going about it - however, we’re more than happy to help you out.
I guess I got in over my head on this one.
Naw, you're not in over your head. You're just confronting the famous "Gish Gallop" for the first time. No worries, my friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 36 of 91 (311064)
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


I posted some of this stuff. Thanks again.
That Talk.Origins young earth page is excellent. It's a lot of pages but I think I'm going to print it off so I can (a) read it all and (b) have it there in front of me for responses.
He is now attacking Atheism, lol, saying that an atheist can't have morals without God. Of course this is easily disproven, but it's funny that this has come up in a debate over evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 05-11-2006 5:45 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 6:00 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 6:02 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 42 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 6:19 PM SR71 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 91 (311110)
05-11-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


Heh. Next time someone unloads a bunch of junk on you and you need quick answers, TalkOrigins has a nice Index of Creationist Claims; chances are, you'll find most, if not all, of them there.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 91 (311111)
05-11-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


Like I said...
Get him to explain what he understands the basic concepts and mechanisms of the ToE to be.
I'll bet a nickle that he can't.
You've got to start at the very basic level, and get HIM to do some research and make an effort to learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 91 (311115)
05-11-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by SR71
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


quote:
He is now attacking Atheism, lol, saying that an atheist can't have morals without God. Of course this is easily disproven, but it's funny that this has come up in a debate over evolution.
Ah, that's a sign that he doesn't want to actually do any work or bother to educate himself in the actual science.
Ignore the other stuff, say you'll get back to it another time.
Seriously, ask him to outline the basic concepts and mechanisms of the ToE as scientists use it, and see how he does.
If he struggles, then ask him how it is he can criticize it without understanding the basics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 3:35 PM SR71 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 91 (311126)
05-11-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by SR71
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


He is now attacking Atheism, lol, saying that an atheist can't have morals without God.
Atheists are significantly underrepresented in prisons, according to surveys, usually by about a factor of ten. That is to say, if 10% of Americans as a whole are atheists, less than 1% of people in prison are atheists. It's the religious who are typically much more likely to commit crimes. Across the nation, divorce rates are considerably higher in the Bible belt than among the nation as a whole.
Atheists can't be moral without God? Looks to me like it's the religious who can't be moral even with God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 3:35 PM SR71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-11-2006 10:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 91 (311127)
05-11-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by SR71
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


deleted post
Oops. Meant to abort the mission, but must have pressed the wrong button.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-May-2006 10:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 3:35 PM SR71 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 91 (311136)
05-11-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by SR71
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


Yup, Gish Gallop.
He is now attacking Atheism, lol, saying that an atheist can't have morals without God.
That's the classic tactic of Creationists. You might remind him that according to the Bible most of the Goats will be believers, not Atheists.
See Matthew 25:44

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 3:35 PM SR71 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 43 of 91 (311164)
05-11-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


(1) The sun is shrinking in mass.
He's correct this far - but I just posted this aweek ago that lets us estimate how much mass the Sun has lost in the last 4.55 billion years - and it comes out to a little under 0.05% from matter that is converted to energy. A minute fraction more - maybe a millionth of that? - is also lost as the solar wind.
ref:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/wind.html says ten million tons per year for the solar wind, where the mass->energy conversion is 4.3 million tons per second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 91 (311228)
05-11-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


coral - ations and mathematical models.
(5) The moons gravitation pull on the earth has been slowly causing the days to lengthen. Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth. With this in mind the eath/moon relationship could not possible be more than 1.2 billion years old, and geologic evidence indicates that it is much younger. geologic evidence is not the carbon dating or anything along those lines but the evidence I have provided to you.
"Creatortionistas" (creationists that distort the truth, like "Dr. Dino") like to use bad math to make their points. They do this because the know (1) the believers are not going to check the math if what he tells them correlates with their belief and (2) they can sound professional and scientific to the ignorant.
The basic premise is correct -- the effect of the moon's gravity on the earth, especially on the tides causes (a) the earth's rotation to slow down and (b) the moon's orbital energy to increase. The math that hovind uses after that is where his conclusion goes bogus.
Let's look at another piece of evidence for an old earth: corals, fossil corals, that have not only annual growth patterns but daily growth patterns, and have a repudable radiometric dating age and let's see if the evidence adds up.
We can assemble the bits and pieces, placing ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (T-230 and P-231 are used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who doubt radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?
The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system. From "Coral Growth and Geochronometry> (Nature, March 9, 1963 By Prof. John W. Wells):
Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h (ref. 1).
If we could determine, for example, that the number of days in the Cambrian year was of the order of 420, it would seem to confirm an indicated age of 600 million years based on tidal friction and in turn that since isotopic methods give the same result they too are in harmony.
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.
Point 1: -- These are calculations made by professional astro-physicists on the rotational period of the earth versus age of the earth, they are made by the same knowledge of physics that lands rovers on mars in the area that was chosen to land in. Their prediction is that 600 million years ago the day was 21 hours long and there were 420 in a year. This clearly is NOT a young earth (nor is Hovind's "date" of 1.2 billion years, btw)
Point 2: -- They predicted that fossil corals that show daily growth rings would show this change in rotational period as increased days in annual growth, and the radiometric dating of the fossil puts them at the right age for the rotational period calculated by the astro-physicists.
Old earth validated by the evidence showing that the rotational period did in fact change in just the way that the asto-physicists calculated. But that's not all -- let's look at the earth\moon system age issues.
First the ages of each:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.
The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.
Point 3: -- This is real geological evidence that shows that the earth is 4.54 billion years old and the moon is a close second (based on very limited data) at 4.5 billion years old. Any rock can date younger, but that isn't evidence of a younger earth or moon.
Logical conclusion: they were formed at the same time, about 4.5 billion years ago.
Also note (from the same source):
Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago.
Pretty good agreement on the age of the solar system so far.
Now from
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/.../lect/moon/moon_formation.html
Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):
  1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
  2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
  3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
  4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
  5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

These analyses indicate that the abundances of elements in Lunar and Terrestrial material are sufficiently different to make it unlikely that the Moon formed directly from the Earth. Generally, work over the last 10 years has essentially ruled out the first two explanations and made the third one rather unlikely. At present the fifth hypothesis, that the Moon was formed from a ring of matter ejected by collision of a large object with the Earth, is the favored hypothesis; however, the question is not completely settled and many details remain to the accounted for.
There is some controversy on this issue of the formation of the moon:
Earth – Facts and Information about the Planet Earth
A pair of new studies has helped pin down how long it took Earth to form, breaking down the final barrier of disagreement over the precise timing but creating a problem for the leading theory of the Moon's formation.
Earth reached mature size 30 million years after the Sun's birth, the two independent results show. This is in line with the leading theoretical model and most other indicators.
However, this is about 70 million years quicker than what was expected by Moon formation theorists. These researchers' computer models have the satellite being carved from a nearly mature Earth by a large impact about 100 million years after the origin of the solar system.
Cameron said the new dates might call into question the leading theory of the Moon's formation. That theory holds that about 100 million years after the Sun's birth, the Earth was about 90 percent of its full size and was hit by a single Mars-sized object. The impact kicked up material that went into orbit around the planet and gathered together to become the Moon.
(the leading theory of the Moon's formation linked above says:
For 25 years, scientists have pondered a theory that the Moon was created when an object the size of Mars crashed into Earth less than 100 million years after the Sun was born, some 4.6 billion years ago. The general idea has been run through the paces and massaged into shape and is now the favored explanation.
Point 4: -- There is disagreement on how the earth moon system formed, but all these theories are consistent with an earth and moon formed 4.5 billion years ago, and these theories are being promoted by those same astro-physicists that predicted the rotational period of the earth that was validated by the coral fossils. Clearly the mathematics of the earth-moon system does not collapse in a mere 1.2 billion years when done properly.
One final point.
Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth.
Mathematical models never prove anything. It is a model of reality that involves making assumptions and it is used to make predictions: it is only as good as the assumptions involved. Models are tested against reality, not to see if reality is wrong, but to see if the model is accurate. If the results predicted by the model are not reflected in reality, then the model is changed.
If a mathematical model shows that Hurricane Katerina could not have hit New Orleans, then one has to assume that either the mathematical model is wrong or recent experience is wrong. Only logically challenged people would side with the mathematical model and say that recent experience is wrong.
If a mathematical model is at odds with reality it is not the reality that is wrong.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 11:26 PM RAZD has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 45 of 91 (311234)
05-11-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
05-11-2006 6:00 PM


Atheists are significantly underrepresented in prisons, according to surveys, usually by about a factor of ten.
In my subjective experience, I tend to agree, however I would like to know your sources.
Across the nation, divorce rates are considerably higher in the Bible belt than among the nation as a whole.
No request for a response here, its been that way since I was a kid and evidence for this statement is easily found in census data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 6:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:38 PM anglagard 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