Topic Proposal Issues

Hi Panda

I think someone should simply point out that he can't even do simple subtraction.

but first tell him that the rate of deposit was even higher in the young solar system ...

It's also a copy paste

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2012022820110...

which is also a copy paste from the formating.

Another creationist that doesn't check his sources accuracy.

Enjoy.

I think I see his problem.

He's a creationist.

I don't see how he could have infected his calculator with his stupidity, but even if he could, anyone with half a brain would have spotted an error of that ... what's the word? ... ah yes, magnitude.

Allowing that his numbers are correct that is a .0000003% change in the earth's mass over 4.5 billion years.

The other major error is in his belief that the mass of the earth would have an effect of its orbit. When the orbiting body is significantly less massive than the body being orbited (about 1,000,000 to 1 here), then the only mass that has any significance in the two-body problem is the central mass being orbited.

IOW, his

quote:

---

Anyway the point is that if the earth 4.5 billion years ago was so small compare to what it is righ now the earh should be farther away from the sun than what it is right now,what could be the consequences?NOT LIFE

---

is, like the rest of his claim, hokum. He has no understanding of orbital mechanics, in addition to no understanding of simple arithmetic.

oh please, another ... creationidist pratt monger

Best Evidence Macro-Evolution: The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.

Now let's define macroevolution as used in science ... and then look at the evidence we have for that ... in the world around us, in the DNA record, and in the fossil record.

Enjoy.

I wonder if he will even know what this means

Admin writes: 5.9736 * 1024 - 1.8 * 1017 = 5.9736 * 1024

Since he thinks his figures are correct.

The reply in on Yahoo was perhaps better suited:

quote:

---

5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 - 180,000,000,000,000,000 =
5,973,599,820,000,000,000,000,000

---

Or maybe like this is better still...

5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 
          180,000,000,000,000,000 -
5,973,599,820,000,000,000,000,000

Though I doubt that alkimizta2012 will read this.

I gave the PNT Atheists control science a cheer, because I think it is a topic that needs discussion. However, I do not agree with the author's view.

My comment here: I hope the thread is promoted to a forum where Buzsaw is able to participate in the discussion.

Percy perhaps this will help you out.

The proxy being talked about in the emails is using dendrochronology, corals and ice cores to determine temperature.

The OP thinks it's about dating, it's not.

What exactly is the problem? Well the guys who wrote the emails want to fuck with the dendrochronology, coral, and ice core data so that it matches their preconceived idea that AGW is true.

Their problem is the d,c &ic data does not match their massaged, perhaps made up recent temp data.

So let's throw the d,c & ic under the bus to save our grant money otherwise we will have to go out and get a job in the private sector where we will be expected to produce results.

Put this in RAZD's dating thread it will last about one post.

You could stick it in the "GW is a scam" thread, be great ammo for foreveryoung.

Or maybe with a modification in the OP put it in "Is it Science" forum. How ethical are scientists when their livelyhood and research is being funded by political/government organizations?

Hope that helped.

P.S. In over 35 years working as a geologist I haven't seen a problem with d,c or ic data for use to determine either dates or temp/climate. It matches the historical record very well.

AGW is another story.

Edited by petrophysics1, : Add P.S.

Hi petrophysics1

Put this in RAZD's dating thread it will last about one post.

I have already taken that part to that thread and gotten one reply so far, just a recap not really a reply. We'll see if he pursues it.

You could stick it in the "GW is a scam"* thread, be great ammo for foreveryoung. Or maybe with a modification in the OP put it in "Is it Science" forum. How ethical are scientists when their livelyhood and research is being funded by political/government organizations?

* the "GW is a scam" is Global Warming is a Scam

Good ideas, I also suggested some modification to use on Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

abe

Taking the scam part to Global Warming is a Scam is probably the best, with the dating part already at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (see Message 185 onward).

Of course global climate change is more correct than global warming, as most of the added energy goes into the atmosphere and is transfered into wind as well as heat -- more storms with higher energy winds, tornadoes and waterspouts in unusual places, etc. This can also be a reason for temps not matching the model -- the model is wrong on other energy transfers.

/abe

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : added end

Edited by RAZD, : added message link

I do not seem able to get a proposed topic of discussion entered into the science forum.
What am I doing wrong here?

//////
suggested topiv"

Nothing in the Miller and Urey Experiment description is necessarily wrong, but doesn't really accurately reflect modern thinking on the origin of life on earth some would claim.
What was essentially a special case of Spontaneous Generation, which started the unceasing multiplying of that initial protoplasm which became whole kingdoms of life forms, happened nearly 4 billion years.
After all that time there is very little evidence to explain how abiogenesis was possible.
Research since Miller/Urey has been very active and come quite a long ways, some "say", BUT we still know very little.

Modern speculation on the subject is very circumspect, including religious claims of a Spontaneous Generation, and the scientific suspicion of some concrete chemistry at work.

No recent responsible presentation would offer a simplistic scenario like Miller and Urey Experiment without making clear that it's just a very simplified and speculative summary of one possibility for abiogenesis (i.e. the de facto Spontaneous Generation which religion and science had long espoused over the centuries until this very day.

So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

The Hockey Stick Curve for temperature rise parallels the hockey Stick Curve for Deforrestation over the same period of time.

Could the Lumber Industry be creating a tree-barren Easter Island over all the Earth as it eliminates the Carbon sucking trees from the planet?

kofh2u writes: I do not seem able to get a proposed topic of discussion entered into the science forum. What am I doing wrong here?

Can you describe what happens when you try to create a topic proposal?

I think a menu came up and said "you can post in this thread" or something like that.

You don't say what you did. Did you click on the "New Topic" button? If not, then what did you do?

If you did click on the "New Topic" button then you should have seen this message:

You may not open a new topic in this forum. New topics for most forums must be proposed in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Did you see this message? Or did you see something else? If you saw something else, then what did you see?

If you did see this message, did you follow the instructions? If so, what happened?