Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (9007 total)
47 online now:
(47 visitors)
Newest Member: Funkaloydb
Post Volume: Total: 881,322 Year: 13,070/23,288 Month: 1/794 Week: 96/138 Day: 1/19 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Introduction To Geology
Posts: 4316
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 159 of 294 (672468)
09-08-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:33 PM

But is George Darwin's mistake still in use? Or, having been found to be in error, was it instead discarded in favor of a more correct calculation? And yet the creationist use of this kind of mistake still persists despite having repeatedly been shown to be in error.

Science is self-correcting, in that every conclusion can be reexamined and reevaluated and, when shown to be wrong, can be corrected or replaced. Science is not perfect nor is it void of mistakes, but at least when mistakes are made they can be corrected and there is strong motivation in science to find and correct mistakes.

Creationism is not self-correcting nor even capable of being corrected from without. Indeed, it is very highly resistant to the correcting of its mistakes since there is very high motivation against the truth and in favor of whatever lies could be used in its social, political, and theological agendae.

The "typical creationist mistake" is not an incorrect calculation, but rather it is not having tested that calculation for correctness and, upon finding it to be in error, not correcting it, but rather misrepresenting it as correct (ie, lying to the world about it). The "typical creationist mistake" is not committed by one individual creationist (though it does usually start there), but rather it is committed by the entire creationist community as it shuns the truth and embraces falsehoods despite those falsehoods having been repeatedly exposed as such.

So then, no, we're not blaming creationists for making the mistake Darwin's kid did, but rather for adamantly refusing to correct that mistake.

Regarding your later message Message 158:

As seen from Dalrymple's whole chapter, ...

Dalrymple wrote many chapters. Which are you claiming to talk about? Why do you not cite it?

And why do you not indicate which message you are allegedly "replying to"?

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Posts: 4316
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 160 of 294 (672477)
09-08-2012 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
09-08-2012 9:50 AM

Re: Core rotation
In addition, there should probably be discussion of the various factors that account for the slowing down and speeding up of the earth's rotation, even though the net effect is slowing down. In addition to the slow acceleration of the moon to a higher orbit, which in turn slows the earth's rotation down, there is also conservation of angular momentum due to the rise and fall of the earth's crust due to earth quakes, the slow rebound of the northern hemisphere following the last ice age, and the like -- when a section of crust rises, we slow down and when a section of crust falls, such as I understand happened in a Chilean earthquake, we speed up. I've also heard about friction from the oceans.

We constantly monitor the speed of the earth's rotation through direct empirical measurements, as performed by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). This is to maintain Coordinated Universal Time (UTC -- what you used to get from the phone company (from Pacific Bell at least, but not from Mississippi's Bell) and now get from WWV and your NTP time servers), which requires knowing when to add or subtract leap seconds, though so far they've only been added, all 25 of them so far.

Elsewhere, we could get into the common creationist mistake of assuming that the rate of adding leap seconds was the rate at which the earth was slowing down, thus making the earth spin ridiculously fast millions of years ago. That was of course a serious mistake that yielded a rate several thousands of times too fast. That claim was refuted soundly 30 years ago and yet, even though its originator, Walter Brown, no longer uses it, the creationist community continues to spam it all over the Web refusing to give it up even when directly presented with irrefutable evidence that it is grotesquely wrong.

But that side-line has no place in Dr. Adequate's scholarly efforts here. Though the IERS may have a place here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 9:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 8:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Posts: 4316
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 211 of 294 (683758)
12-13-2012 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by morningstar2008
12-12-2012 1:13 AM

Re: K-Ar Dating
Nu, tovarishch! Vy Ruski? Ja niet. Na, yest zdis problema.

You appear to be Russian or something close. There appears to be some attempts to display Cyrillics which is failing completely. This makes your posts even more unreadable.

For example, your "From:" field is unreadable. Then in this message there's this line:

As I in physics am not so strong, but nevertheless there is a wish to understand àðõè.

Hopefully, you can see that that last four-letter word after "understand" is gibberish. Even if it is not to you with your PC's settings, it is gibberish to us. By the way (BTW), "gibberish" means that it is complete incomprehensible nonsense.

These are things that you need to take care of before we can even begin to take you seriously. You should work with the forum administrators to resolve these problems.

Mods: I believe that I violated the "off topic" admonision for a very good reason that had nothing to do with the off-topic-niss issue. ¡Lo que pasa!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by morningstar2008, posted 12-12-2012 1:13 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 6:47 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020