Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
61 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,347 Year: 1,993/14,102 Month: 361/624 Week: 82/163 Day: 2/40 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   new creation/evolution debate forum
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 121 (617006)
05-25-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
05-25-2011 11:45 AM


Re: BS spam site,
dwise1 writes:

Hovind was the only creationist I found who would throw in that solar mass-loss claim, which he refused to support in any fashion. Since this guy is repeating it, I wonder if he's ready to defend it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2011 11:45 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2011 10:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 121 (618121)
06-01-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by dwise1
05-31-2011 10:05 PM


Shrinking sun, dust moon
dwise1 writes:


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2011 10:05 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 06-01-2011 2:42 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2011 3:18 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 121 (618150)
06-01-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taz
06-01-2011 2:42 PM


Re: Shrinking sun, dust moon
Taz writes:


What dwise1 did was use simple algebra, which this young man probably hasn't even had in school.

Many adults cannot use algebra effectively despite having completed a high school course in the subject.

Dwise1 is doing a wonderful job at making this guy look at specific details and see how nonsensical his claims were.

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:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/sun.asp

And AIG's modern take:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...s/am/v3/n1/far-out-claims

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 06-01-2011 2:42 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2011 4:47 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 61 of 121 (618165)
06-01-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dwise1
06-01-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Shrinking sun, dust moon
dwise1 writes:

OK, so I also used direct and indirect proportional relationships

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)!!!!

If gravitational collapse is involved, then the mass lost through fusion will be less.

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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2011 4:47 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2011 7:38 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 121 (618185)
06-01-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dwise1
06-01-2011 7:38 PM


Re: Shrinking sun, dust moon
He says he's not a creationist. Maybe he's just trying to generate some traffic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2011 7:38 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2011 10:57 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021