Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 16 of 135 (510921)
06-04-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
06-04-2009 5:09 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 06-04-2009 5:09 PM Huntard has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 17 of 135 (510922)
06-04-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rahvin
06-04-2009 5:20 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by bluescat48, : as I have said before, sp what else could it be?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2009 5:20 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 135 (510927)
06-04-2009 5:55 PM


101 pieces of evidence for YEC dishonesty
DNA in ancient fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Since creationists deny most dating methods, isn't this an invalid argument?
Sceptics attribute the reported DNA ‘finds’ to contamination of samples, or later intrusion of DNA-containing organic matter into the geological formation. Indeed, some claims have been overturned
Oh yeah, I forgot. Being sceptical is a bad thing, especially if one is sceptical of a young earth, or if one postulates that a highly probable contamination may have taken place.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 06-05-2009 7:01 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 135 (510951)
06-05-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 2:35 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 2:35 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2991 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 20 of 135 (510952)
06-05-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Fun with others
Here's another that seems to rely on a failure to actually read the science.
quote:
7.Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
In fact, none of the above were found. Just as the fossilized dinosaur bones retained the shape of the of the original bone, so did certain structures in the interior of the intact femur. There were some small spots that had the shape of blood cells, but there was no hemoglobin. Heme was found, which is an iron compound. Neither did these so called "cells" have cell walls, it is incorrect to characterize them as "blood cells." Blood cell remnants would be more correct.
The same is true with the "blood vessels." These structures were flexible (after the rock had been dissolved with acid) but they were not made of protein. The best that can be said is that they did contain some short sequences of amino acids and that they, like the whole bone, retained the original shape.
So, the claim that hemoglobin, osteocalcin, and collagen were found are incorrect. Heme was found - not hemoglobin. Short sequences of amino acids that are typical of sequences that are found in the proteins osteocalcin and collagen were also identified, but these sequences are far too short to be called osteocalcin or collagen.
It is a bit of a wonder that any of these things should actually have been found. This was a very special case. In the past, the inside of fossilized bones has been studied only when the fossil has been found in pieces. Intact fossils are not cut in order to peek inside. However, this fossil (the femur of a large T. rex) was intact and so large that it could not be removed from the remote dig site without cutting it in half. A helicopter large enough to lift the fossil, the huge amount of matrix surrounding it, and the plaster cast to protect it was not available. Thus, the interior of the fossil was available for examination.
If you consider that fossils are mineralized from the outside in, one might expect that the inside of a massive bone would be sealed as the outside fossilized. Thus, the interior of this massive bone was sealed inside an impervious layer of rock that had once been dinosaur bone. While actual dinosaur tissue was not preserved, iron compounds and short strands of amino acids were preserved in their original shape.
Creationist arguments about quick fossilization depend on the abundance of mineralized water. Not the case here. This specimen was found in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. It is very dry. The K-T boundary is quite evident in these formations. This fossil was found in an almost inaccessible hill-side (no roads) just below the K-T boundary somewhere around Jordan, MT.
If anyone finds himself in Montana and would like to see the K-T boundary then he should visit Pompey's Pillar National Monument, about 25 miles NE of Billings on IH 94. This structure is a remnant of the Hell Creek Formation. William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) carved his name in 1806. About 1/3 of the way up the mesa the K-T boundary is quite visible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 135 (510958)
06-05-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


The "Leap Second" Claim yet again, only stealthed up
So many PRATTS, so little time (isn't that the definition of the "Gish Gallop"?). Rest assured that I'll get to the "Bunny Blunder" (that one's always good for hilarious laughs), but this one just goes way too far:
quote:
67. Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth’s angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day every century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon).
Now, the rate that they cite is correct, but the conclusions are completely wrong because they were derived from the original claim. You see, that site or its source had doctored the original claim. Here's the original claim as propagated by that creationist vector, "Dr" Kent Hovind (transcription of his taped seminars as posted at Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar 1, part b - The Age of the Earth, cont... (1998)):
quote:
Slowing Earth
Another factor. The earth is spinningwe are turning around. How many knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day. Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal. We will have to have a leap second. A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? Now kids this is going to be kind of complicated so listen carefully. The earth is spinning but it is slowing down. So that means that it used to be going faster. How many can figure that out with no help? Okay several. Well, now if the earth is only 6,000 years old that is not a problem. It was probably spinning a little faster when Adam was here. Maybe they had 23 and 1/2 hours in a day. They would not notice, they did not have a watch anyway. Some of these folks want you to believe that the earth is billions of years old. Now that would make a problem. If you go back a few billion years, the earth was spinning real fast. Your days and nights would be pretty quick! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! You would never get anything done. And a centrifugal force would have been enormous, would have flattened the earth like a pancake. The winds would have been 5,000 miles an hour from the Coriolis effect. You think the dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago? I know what happened to them? I know what happened to them... they got blown off! No they did not live 70 million years ago, folks; it simply cannot possibly be true.
This particular claim originated around 1979 and was apparently created by creationist Walter Brown who had read about a leap second being added about every 18 months and, not understanding what a leap second is about, though that meant that the earth was slowing down at a rate of one second every 18 months. Uh, no, it is that the standard second is from much earlier (in 1820, whose second is the International Standard second) and the earth has slowed down a bit since then, so the mean solar day is not 86,400 standard seconds (SI) long. Just like the revolutionary period of the earth (AKA "one year") is not an equal number of days long, so once every four years the calendar would be one day off, so we have a "leap year" and add a day. Does that mean that the year is slowing down by one day every four years? Of course not! So leap seconds, although used to compensate for the earth's rotation slowing down, do not mean that the earth is slowing down at the rate at which leap seconds are added. DUH?
Within a few years, in 1982, that claim was soundly refuted (see "As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?" at As the World Turns | National Center for Science Education). While Walter Brown is the first example of a deliberately deceptive creationist that I had found (due to his infamous "rattlesnake protein" claim, which still exists as a footnote in his on-line book), even he had the good sense to drop his "leap second" claim after it had been refuted; I could not find any mention of it in his on-line book two decades later. Yet countless other creationists still use it unabated, such as Kent Hovind and Minority Report's chosen website, though that website has chosen to lie about the claim as well.
FWIW, I wrote a complete response to this claim which is posted at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/solarsystem.html#A9. In writing that, I took Hovind's version of the claim and researched back through the creationist sources that he himself had cited. I'm "David Wise" among the responses there.
Now, Brown and the creationists who followed him gave a rate of the earth's rotation slowing by one second every 12 to 18 months and based their extrapolation on that rate. But that rate is about 18,000 times greater than the actual rate of 2 milliseconds per day per century.
That is why Minority Report's cited site is lying. Even though it gives the correct rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing, it then presents false conclusions based on a false rate that is about 18,000 times greater than the actual rate of 2 milliseconds per day per century.
The site to which I had responded was questionevolution.com, though the answers to that site are at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/. You see, the author of questionevolution.com had originally invited comments on his postings and originally provided a link to those responses, but when he saw that everybody who had actually studied the subject knew that his claims were pure crap, he removed that link from his site. You see, his main claim was that "evolutionists" had no response to these claims, whereas "evolutionists" have always had responses, a fact that he had to cover up. Amazing how quickly creationists have to become liars in order to support their religion with creationism.
So then, how long would the days have been way back when, given the correct rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down? That site had asked how long the day was 1 billion years ago:
quote:
So, to answer your question of how long a day would have been one billion years ago:
1 billion years / (100 years/century) = 10 million centuries.
10 million centuries * 2 milliseconds per day per century = 20,000 seconds shorter.
20,000 seconds = 5 hours 33 minutes 20 seconds.
Therefore, one billion years ago, one day should have been about 18 hours, 27 minutes, 40 seconds long.
Thwaits & Awbrey {the authors of that 1982 article} performed the same calculation for 4.5 billion years ago and arrived at a 13-hour day. They then pointed out that Jupiter has a ten-hour day and does not suffer from the extreme shape distortion that Brown predicted for the ancient earth ("The earth would have been shaped like a very rapidly spinning pizza crust." -- indirectly quoted by Thwaites & Awbrey).
Might I mention that the earth is a solid whereas Jupiter is gaseous. A solid would be far less likely to deform due to rotation than a gas would, so where's your "pancake" (AKA "pizza", depending on which creationist you just happen to reference).
Now here's the beauty of it. Do the math and you will find that about 400 million years ago, in the Devonian (Parc national de Miguasha - Parcs nationaux - Spaq), the year would have been 400 days long (in case you didn't know, the current year is 365 days long, 366 days in a leap year). The coral shows that the year back then was indeed 400 days long. Two independent lines of evidence coming together to give the same results.
So, (addressing Minority Report here, of course) your cited site gave the actual rate, but then presented the false conclusions of the original false claim whose premises it had chosen to hide. Uh, that's lying! So your religion depends on these claims, so then your religion depends on lies? And this would attract prospective converts to your lying religion ... how?
OBTW, I'm a software engineer who for over a decade has been been working on a line of products that use GPS receivers. GPS time is the straight count of seconds since the "beginning of time" on midnight, 06 January 1980; UTC time (what you used to get by calling "time" on the telephone) is GPS time minus the current number of leap seconds, which is currently 15 -- ie, 15 leap seconds have been added since 06 Jan 1980. IOW, I work with leap seconds every day.
Another side issue before comes from the "Religious Tolerance" site in Canada, in particular page, "A Failed Attempt to Dialog with Creation Scientists," (Unsuccessful dialog with young-earth creationists about an error) in which the author made a good-will effort to open an honest dialog with creationists. He compiled a list of 15 sites which repeat this false leap-second claim and contacted their webmasters informing them that the claim is false and precisely why. Since this claim is clearly in error, those creationists could not possibly not realize that the claim is false; it's not a difference of opinion nor of interpretation, but rather a clear unambiguous fact. He had hoped that once they saw that the claim was false, they would remove that claim, or at least amend it. He even saw it as a win-win situation, in which we would win by taking a falsehood out of circulation and creationists would win by improving the quality of their material. Unfortunately, he only got a few responses which either refused to accept that the claim is false (without addressing the facts), asked for more information, or simply thanked him for his interest. NONE of the sites made any changes. The author finally had to conclude that meaningful dialog is impossible.
So that is the only conclusion that people must reach when trying to deal honestly with creationists. That creationists and their religion are only based on outright lies.
Any comment on that, Minority Report? Please keep to the facts.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 10:01 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2009 10:37 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2009 12:33 AM dwise1 has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1015 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 22 of 135 (510973)
06-05-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Meldinoor
06-04-2009 5:55 PM


Re: 101 pieces of evidence for YEC dishonesty
DNA in ancient fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Since creationists deny most dating methods, isn't this an invalid argument?
Not really - isn't the purpose of the argument to show why dating methods are invalid. They're claiming that DNA couldn't last more than a million years, so if dating methods suggest DNA is older than this the dating methods must be wrong. It's a valid argument, even if it's not sound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Meldinoor, posted 06-04-2009 5:55 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 06-05-2009 7:12 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 23 of 135 (510976)
06-05-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by caffeine
06-05-2009 7:01 AM


Re: 101 pieces of evidence for YEC dishonesty
My interpretation was that he was questioning how anyone who denied dating methods could make any claims at all about how old anything is. One can imagine them saying, "These fossils date to 425 million years old, but dating methods are invalid, therefore they're actually only thousands of years old," and presumably be unaware of the leap of faith. They seem to think that if science is wrong then that proves the Bible right.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 06-05-2009 7:01 AM caffeine has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2991 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 24 of 135 (510995)
06-05-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Number 37 - Erosion at Niagara Falls
quote:
37. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood.
How bizarre that any event that took place in the past that can be stated in thousands of years somehow becomes evidence for mythological events that were supposed to have occurred 4,500 or 6,000 years ago. Take # 3 for example. Of course, for creationists the accumulation of genetic diversity in the genome becomes "decay" in a few thousand years. Try 70,000 years, when our ancestral human population underwent a severe bottleneck. This was before the last exodus from Africa and was very nearly an extinction event.
Likewise, the thousands of years stated in the 150,000 year hypothesis of the mitochondrial Eve, and the 60,000 to 90,000 year hypothesis of the y-chromosomal Adam become the same "few thousand years."
But why would anyone presume that the progress of the falls upstream from the Niagara escarpment had anything to do with the mythical flood of Noah. But again, the 4,500 year span is equated to the 12,000 years of erosion since the retreat of the the falls. All periods of "thousands of years" somehow become 6,000 and 4,500 years and "prove" a young earth.
The truth is much clearer. The Great Lakes were carved out by the advance of glaciers during the last ice age that began about 110,000 years ago. The flow of the Niagara River from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario began when the glaciers receded northward beyond the location of the river and the vast amounts of melt-water that filled the lakes began to flow to the Atlantic through the St. Laurence. That was a bit more than 12,000 years ago. There is no evidence around the Niagara River of a global flood. In fact, the relatively hard limestone and dolostone that forms the surface layer around the falls is not a flood deposit and could not have lithified to the extent that it has in 4,500 years. That doesn't even take into consideration that underlying the surface is a layer of shale, which is another sedimentary rock that is not formed by floods.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "- Erosion at Niagara Falls" to the subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 135 (511025)
06-05-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Response from the author
Correction to the OP:
In response to my email, the author of the "101 evidences for a young age..." article replied that claim #51 did not center on the Russian coal/charcoal problem, but rather centered on the following article:
Lowe, D.C., 1989. Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material. Radiocarbon 31:117—120.
The Lowe article simply notes that if you don't handle coal properly it will become contaminated because of microbial and fungal activity. Such measures as a nitrogen atmosphere are recommended. With proper handling it is a good material for a radiocarbon standard, as it is virtually devoid of C14.
This is the exact opposite of evidence for a young earth. This is in fact clear evidence for an old earth.
So, even if my response was to the incorrect coal "problem" -- which has been the standard creationist line for over 15 years -- the alternative not only doesn't constitute evidence for a young earth, but shows the exact opposite. Creation "science" as usual.
(I have not quoted the author's response directly because I didn't ask for permission to do so.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 135 (511048)
06-05-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
06-05-2009 2:59 AM


Re: The "Leap Second" Claim yet again, only stealthed up
Is it OK if I convert this into a SkepticWiki article? I feel that it deserves a wider audience.
I can post it in your name if you like. Or credit you on the talk page. Or set you up an account ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2009 8:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 135 (511051)
06-05-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
06-05-2009 2:59 AM


talking coral heads revisited
Hi dwise1
Now here's the beauty of it. Do the math and you will find that about 400 million years ago, in the Devonian (Parc national de Miguasha - Parcs nationaux - Spaq), the year would have been 400 days long (in case you didn't know, the current year is 365 days long, 366 days in a leap year). The coral shows that the year back then was indeed 400 days long. Two independent lines of evidence coming together to give the same results.
Another source for the coral day lengths is provided here:
Age Correlations: Talking Coral Heads
quote:
For now we can assemble the bits and pieces, placing the ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (thorium-230 is used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who still have some doubts about 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.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html (2)
quote:
The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. 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 ...
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.
I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:

Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg (3)
This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).

The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data.

References:
(2) Wells, John W. "Coral Growth and Geochronometry" Nature 197, 948 - 950 (09 March 1963); doi:10.1038/197948a0. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html
(3) Wells, John W. - source of picture not known, found on website accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg
The article linked is a copy of the article in Nature.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : new subtitle

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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 135 (511066)
06-06-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
06-05-2009 2:59 AM


Re: The "Leap Second" Claim yet again, only stealthed up
I've been doing a bit more research on this, I think I see how they got muddled. Here's a piece on tidal braking from NASA:
Currently the secular change in the rotation rate increases the length of day by some 2.3 milliseconds per day per century.
To see what that means, consider this example: suppose the rotating earth is our clock and it's been 100 years since that clock's "standard second" was set to correspond to an atomic clock's second (which is actually almost the case, notwithstanding that atomic clocks weren't around until 1955). Then after 1000 days our earth clock loses about 2.3 seconds, falling further behind the atomic clock. This long-term slowing of the rotation is a primary reason for periodically inserting leap seconds into our timekeeping.
In short, the reason for the leap seconds is tidal braking. But the effect of tidal braking is not that the Earth slows by 2.3 seconds every thousand days, but that it has slowed by 2.3 milliseconds over the last hundred years. The 2.3 seconds per 1000 days is not the Earth slowing down, it is the Earth running slow, as compared to a standard clock.
Muddling these two concepts means that creationist figures for how the Earth is slowing are off by a factor of 30000. Considering that their figure for the age of the Universe is off by a factor of 2000000, this is not bad ... for creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2009 8:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 135 (511113)
06-06-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
06-05-2009 10:01 PM


Re: The "Leap Second" Claim yet again, only stealthed up
Is it OK if I convert this into a SkepticWiki article? I feel that it deserves a wider audience.
I can post it in your name if you like. Or credit you on the talk page. Or set you up an account ...
You have my permission. Credit me or not, whichever you like. If you do post it in my name, please ensure that you post it accurately.
Also, do you mean my post here or my more complete posting in response to questionevolution.com, the link to which I had included in my post here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 30 of 135 (511118)
06-06-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-06-2009 12:33 AM


Re: The "Leap Second" Claim yet again, only stealthed up
I do not doubt that the claim originated through a genuine misunderstanding of what a leap second was and what it meant -- Brown's references were two internal Air Force publications and a Reader's Digest article. Where the dishonesty comes in is when they continue to use that claim in spite of the truth long after they've been shown, repeatedly, that that claim is wrong and why it's wrong.
In this case, I was amazed at the outright deception being propagated by Don Batten. The conclusions of the claim are from its original form which was based on that genuine misunderstanding of leap seconds. But then either he or his creationist source (I'm sure that it was his source, since he was employing standard creationist scholarship practices of simply repeating other creationists' claims without any attempt to verify them) replaced the wrong rate with the correct one, thus creating a lie since those wrong conclusions have nothing to do with the correct rate.
Ironically, Don Batten also wrote an article that was highly critical of Carl Baugh and his obviously bogus creationist claims: What About Carl Baugh? which is reposted by Glen Kuban at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html. He concludes that article with:
quote:
Muddying the water?
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
Batten demonstrated there that he is fully aware of the detrimental effects of propagating bogus creationist claims. And yet he did not hestitate to do that same with this list of "101 evidences ... ".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2009 12:33 AM Dr Adequate 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