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.
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.
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.
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.