new creation/evolution debate forum

You don't understand. My posts didn't time out. I already posted them. And so had other people. The guy erased all threads to start over after he realized we were the real thing, not some laymen.

I did understand that and we will see if that happens again.What I'm saying is that, regardless of the reason for lost replies, it's good practice to compose a detailed reply off-line.

Damn, you're old.

Took 5 days with me trying to get him to join in and do the math along with me and him trying to avoid it with hand-waving pronouncements, but we're finally at the point of the effect on the earth's orbit being miniscule, earth "sucked in" by the ancient sun by less than 38,000 miles. Now we've pointed out that the earth each year gets 1.5 million miles closer to the sun and I asked him to guess what time of the year that happens.Share and enjoy!

Any creationist knows that south is warm and north is cold, so of course God intended that perihelion occur when it's summer in the southern hemisphere. --Percy

He is completely out of his depth.
I was a little abrupt to him in one post, but I almost regret it because it now feels like bullying.His reluctance to put '2 and 2' together is (from my POV) bizarre.

I'm convinced he is 13 years old or so. I'd put the upper limit of his age at 16 or 17.Edit.Keep your eyes open for thread deletion. Let's see if history will repeat itself.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I read most of it. I'm not convinced that he's deliberately avoiding the math.I also saw the shrinking moon orbit PRATT tucked away under the moon dust topic. The poor fella didn't even post enough of the problem to raise an issue.

I have a feeling he's having trouble understanding the math.What dwise1 did was use simple algebra, which this young man probably hasn't even had in school.Isn't that what creationists like Kent Hovind aimed to do? These crooks used some very big language designed for anybody to understand to preach bullshit. The sad thing is that these people who bought into the Kent Hovind video lectures got the wrong idea that science never goes into anything specific. So, they think that it's good enough to stay in the general sense.Dwise1 is doing a wonderful job at making this guy look at specific details and see how nonsensical his claims were.

He says he's 20. I've asked him about his academic background, whether he's a student and what subjects, but no response.It looks like he's mainly grabbing what he can from other creationist sites and plopping them in his forum with no attributions whatsoever. Basically, plagarizing everything. Nothing new about that among creationists, especially professional creationists who just take another creationist's "work" and reprint it as their own, original bibliographies and all -- that's the main thing I saw in my moon dust research where everybody was citing a NASA document without ever having actually seen it.

That's pretty hard to believe. He writes at at a middle school level at most.

Which means he's about 20. When I went through USAF tech school in '77, we were told that everything was written at an 8'th grade level because that was the average reading level for young adults. Who knows what it is now.Yes, his own writing is very poor. I've just addressed with him that he's obviously plagarizing.

quote:

---

the numbers are irrelavent,

---

I think he's avoiding it. Though it could be the typical fundamentalist trait of turning a blind eye to anything that might contradict their beliefs, even though they may do it unconciously.

Many adults cannot use algebra effectively despite having completed a high school course in the subject. He's done the best you can do, which is to forced the guy to call on a completely new PRATT. The guy has yet to acknowledge anything.There is a separate shrinking sun PRATT based on historical measurements of the sun's apparent size and solar fusion denial. AIG's previous defense of the claim can be found here: Is the Sun Shrinking? | Answers in Genesis And AIG's modern take: Far Out Claims About Astronomy | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

However, modern solar telescopes do not detect solar shrinkage. It seems that the original data merely indicated small oscillations or vibrations of the sun. Furthermore, the missing neutrinos now have been accounted for; newer instruments detect precisely the number of neutrinos expected from solar fusion. Although the sun may be undergoing a very small amount of gravity collapse, we can be confident that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, not an inward collapse.

---

Of course some creationists don't agree with AIG.

Actually, I wasn't even using algebra, but rather only arithmetic. OK, so I also used direct and indirect proportional relationships and scientific notation and negative exponents, but in the last case I always made sure to translate the values to decimal fractions. And I even translated my metric source values to US units for his benefit, though he got quite pissy about it.My understanding of what Hovind was trying to do was to support the "shrinking sun" by also bringing in mass loss. He would try to invoke both gravitational collapse and fusion at his slightly inflated rate, whereas they contradict each other. If the rate of loss through fusion is 4-5 million tons / sec, then the sun's entire energy output is due to fusion and none is due to gravitational collapse. If gravitational collapse is involved, then the mass lost through fusion will be less. You can't have it both ways as Hovind tried. All that Hovind would say about where that 5 million ton figure came from was "I found it in a book." He had no clue. For that matter, I've also found statements of his that indicate that he didn't even understand that the sun wasn't "burning its fuel" through combustion on the sun's surface.PS
Now I've presented Hovind's repeating of Walter Brown's old "leap seconds" claim. Let's see whether he bites and if he's started to learn.Edited by dwise1, : PS