|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Defeating "Dr" Kent Hovinds' claims. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
What you say may well be true of Muhd. But complaining that naturalistic explanations "remove God out of the picture" do display basic God-of-the-Gaps (GOTG) mentality, whether or not he has carried that GOTG theology to its logical conclusions. And, I believe, it is that GOTG mentality that has largely created and perpetuates the fiction that science attacks religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Fork, let your friend explain how well the math works out on this Hovind claim:
quote: So how much more massive would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?At 5 million tons lost a second, that would amount to about 1.5779216 x 1017 tons. The sun's current mass is about 1.9891 x 1027 metric tonnes, or 2.1926 x 1027 short tons (somehow, I just can't see Hovind using the metric system). So the total mass lost in 5 billion years is only about 0.03598%, less than 4 hundredths of one percent, of the sun's current mass. So the ancient sun would have been only marginally more massive than it is now, "sucking" the earth in by less than 100,000 miles. BTW, that figure of 5 million tons per second is about right and Hovind says that he got it from a textbook. In his seminar tape (no long on-line), he said:
quote:Hovind has indicated elsewhere that he doesn't accept the nuclear fusion explanation and seems to prefer gravitational contraction (he does offer this claim to support the "shrinking sun") and combustion. Though combustion would result in near-zero mass loss, not the 5 million tons per second that he cites. Part of the irony here is that that rate of 5 million tons per second is based entirely on nuclear fusion producing the sun's entire energy output. From the sun's perspective, 5 million tons per second is "a small amount of matter [that] produces an enormous amount of heat". So he's basing his claim on something that he doesn't want to accept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Oh my goodness, how ignorant can this Kent guy be? 2 theories on what causes the sun to burn? I see the same thing repeated twice using different words.
The sun's massive gravity results in an enormous pressure on the matter the sun is made of, which is mostly hydrogen and helium. This pressure causes the gas to heat up and you have hydrogen burning, the same process we see happen in a hydrogen bomb, which is the same thing as nuclear fusion. This guy seems to draw strength from people' ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
quote: Hey, he's a real expert on science and math. That's what he keeps saying on his seminar tapes and brags about how well he understands that stuff. After all, he taught high school math and science for 15 years -- what he doesn't add is that, as I understand it, it was at his own private Christian high school that he did that teaching. As for his understanding of how the sun burns, I've found two sources: kent-hovind.com - , "Quacky Quotes", Basic Science I:
quote: Then there was a ... er, religious-fringe site going on about ... oh, go look at it yourself, because you wouldn't believe me if I told you:
quote:at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm The pertinent part was that the occultists were planning on igniting Jupiter into a star by having the Galileo probe crash into the planet whereupon its nuclear reactor would cause a nuclear explosion. [BTW, no, it never could have exploded and, no, it never did] They checked out some sites and asked astronomers about the likelihood. The astronomers explained to them that Jupiter has far too little mass for the core to get a fusion reaction started. These guys simply could not understand what the astronomers were talking about -- and they admit that they couldn't understand -- , but then Kent Hovind gave them an answer they could understand:
quote: I swear, I am not making any of this up. I've emailed that site asking whether they were quoting Hovind accurately, but have never received any answer. I haven't gotten around to asking Hovind. The last time I wrote him it was to ask him what mass he had come up with for the ancient sun. He "responded" by avoiding that question any way he could, including twice trying to pick a fight with me over my AOL screenname. Besides, I'd think that he's probably a bit preoccupied right now with his legal problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
not even with a trillion 1x4x9 black objects?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Well of course, you could use self-replicating monoliths to either increase Jupiter's mass (though if they're not compressible, you still might not enough pressure at the core, plus I'm not sure what effect that increased mass would have on the orbits of the other planets) or to artificially compress Jupiter's existing mass to compress the core enough to fuse.
But these "Illuminati" don't have such monoliths at their disposal, the plutonium dioxide fuel pellets on Galileo wouldn't have exploded (for that, you would need weapons-grade plutonium and you would need some mechanism to compress it to achieve critical mass -- as I recall, Little Man was a high velocity gun that shot one piece of nuclear material into another and Fat Boy was a piece of nuclear material completely surrounded by shaped charges, the kind of design depicted in The Peacemaker), and it still looks very much like Hovind thinks the sun burns by combustion. Even though he uses a mass-loss rate that depends on the sun's entire energy output coming from hydrogen fusion; from a draft web page:
quote: From Hovind's seminar tape:
quote: Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
So, apparently this guy doesn't comprehend or refuses to comprehend what hydrogen burning is. It's kinda sad that this guy has an audience at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6375 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I swear, I am not making any of this up. You couldn't make this up! I don't know which is funnier - that site or Hovind explaining about the lack of oxygen (and them believing it - didn't they go to high school themselves!?) Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hey, fire's nukular, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Fire (ie, combustion) is chemical, not nuclear.
But we knew that even before high school (reference to Hovind's boast that he taught high school science for 15 years). BTW, while many of his followers I've had the [dubious] pleasure of corresponding with cite his doctorate degree to show that he is indeed a scientist, it should be noted that that degree is in religious education. And as I recall, his masters is in education and his bachelor in religion (or the other way around). And that is ignoring the question of whether his masters and doctorate are even legitimate or simply purchased from a degree mill -- different subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Long ago, I fished around for the credentials of some of these crackpots. While I do not have the sources now, I remember finding out that these "doctors" got their doctorates from unaccredited christian schools.
But honestly, any high schooler should know that combustion is different from nuclear fusion. I mean, just how much crack are these people on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Fire (ie, combustion) is chemical, not nuclear. my jokes are failing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4131 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
One should have some sort of solid foundation of evidence for their faith. But you are right, science probably isn't the place to find such evidence.
why? what does evidence have to do with faith? people believe all sorts of crazy things, including fundies
However I will say that evolution and other naturalistic theories are perpetuated in an effort to remove God out of the picture. It saddens me when Christians show support for this kind of godless science.
yes because anything that doesn't center on YOUR god as the source of everything is godless or worthless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
my jokes are failing It wasn't lost on me, Arach. 'Nukular' is what gave it away. I think Dwise1 just hasn't been around on EvC long enough to know you. Or Dwise1 was in too serious a mood to notice your little quip, what with debunking Hovind's nonsense an' all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
However I will say that evolution and other naturalistic theories are perpetuated in an effort to remove God out of the picture. Is "to remove God out of the picture", to put God in the picture.
It saddens me when Christians show support for this kind of godless science. I agree. Bring back Thor so we can understand lightning. Earthquakes are the result of Tulis dogs stopping to scratch for fleas therefore we need to be studying how to get fleapowder to the God Tuli. Chac is needed if we wish to study rain and storms. Poseidon needs to be returned to a central position should we wish to comprehend tsunamis. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024