new creation/evolution debate forum

No surprise Hovind would not defend it, given that the claim cannot survive any serious scrutiny.A quick internet search shows that mass-loss claim verbatim on zillions of web pages. There are also quite a few rebuttals, although many of the rebuttals are less complete/thorough/accurate than they ought to be.

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.

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.

Exactly! That's algebra disguised as arithmetic.And, that cube root relationship stuff to get the sun's diameter stuff sure looks like algebra. Maybe even Algebra II. And then you used trig (in a sentence at least)!!!! I would think that the mass loss would be the same regardless of how the energy was produced. But perhaps without fusion, the original size of the sun might have been a problem by being greater than the size of earth's orbit. I wouldn't bother with claims that he does not suggest himself. In fact his comments regarding the Goldilock's zone don't read like something a die-hard creationist would post.His leap second response seems quite reasonable.Edited by NoNukes, : grammar

He says he's not a creationist. Maybe he's just trying to generate some traffic.