Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hovind: Lies in the Textbook
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 79 (164804)
12-03-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
12-03-2004 12:06 AM


Landless Tides
I don't know what the value would actually be but there is a place where there is, today, no land in the way.
The Antarctic ocean circles the globe. There are no 200 foot tides there. I think he is utterly wrong. My guess he is just making numbers up.
Here is a paragraph from Wikipeida:
The theoretical amplitude of oceanic tides is about 1 metre at the equator, but the real value differs considerably, not only because of global topography as explained above, but also because the natural period of the oceans is rather large: about 30 hours (by comparison, the natural period of the Earth's crust is about 57 minutes). This means that, if the Moon suddenly vanished, the level of the oceans would oscillate with a period of 30 hours with a slowly decreasing amplitude until the stored energy dissipated completely (this 30 h value is a simple function of terrestrial gravity and the average depth of the oceans). Because the Moon's tidal forces drive the oceans with a period of about 12.42 hours (half of the Earth's synodic period of rotation), complex resonance phenomena take place; the main outcome of which being that the average tidal lag is six hours (which means low tide occurs when the Moon is at its zenith or its nadir, a result that goes against common intuition).
I read that as saying that the all-ocean tides would be 1 meter. Hovind may have a problem with the metric system but someone should tell him that 1 meter is appreciable less than 200 ft.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-03-2004 12:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-03-2004 12:06 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 79 (165142)
12-04-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Lithodid-Man
12-04-2004 5:54 AM


Graptolites
Have we finished with trilobites then? They are not in any way close to graptolites are they?
I'm not clear what point it is that you are conceding. It is, of course, possible that Hovind got something right. I'd just like to be clear what that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-04-2004 5:54 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-04-2004 4:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 79 (165187)
12-04-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-04-2004 3:23 PM


Biased?
in your biased stance and your anxiety to dogpile on Hovind.
Could you point out the exact bias? There seems to be some chance that Hovind got one thing sorta right.
Does that mean you don't think he is wrong about many other things?
Let's take an example and give Hovind all the benefit of the doubt we can:
The geologic column. Let's say that he is, in some way, technically correct and that the "column" does not exist in one place, that it is a composite picture.
If that is the case, Hovind, may be described in some interpretations as "right". He is however, in that case totally dishonest.
He deliberately ignores just what this composite column represents he tries to pretend that it is just made up. He has had a lot of time to learn otherwise. He chooses to ignore that and continue to lie.
So, even in this case where we try to see if we can say his words, as spoken, are correct we find that they are in actual substance dishonest. The man is a con-man.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-04-2004 03:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 3:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 79 (167415)
12-12-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
12-12-2004 2:43 PM


Gaining knowledge
by listening to him you'll likely gain a measure of knowledge in one field or another.
Buz, all you'd gain is false "knowledge".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 2:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by lfen, posted 12-12-2004 5:23 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 6:07 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 79 (167485)
12-12-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Buzsaw
12-12-2004 6:07 PM


Agree or not?
As noted by others, why don't you tell us what you do agree with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 6:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 11:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 67 of 79 (167565)
12-12-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
12-12-2004 11:14 PM


Re: On the states of matter
How about we give him mistaken on this one and liar on some of the others? Would that do? I'm not aware of the context of his use of the 3 states of matter so I don't know if it is a significant mistake or not. Perhaps a tempest in a teapot?
Perhaps you can give us two or three that you think he has right. On more substantive issues perhaps. It is beginning to look like you're avoiding doing that Buz.
ABE
uh, where did the "3 states of energy" come from??? I thought we were talkinga bout states of matter?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2004 11:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 11:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 12:00 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 79 (167583)
12-13-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by The Dread Dormammu
12-12-2004 5:58 PM


Hovind's comments about matter states
Could someone point me at the discussion Hovind gives using the states of matter? I don't remember seeing a direct quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 12-12-2004 5:58 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 12-13-2004 11:02 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 74 of 79 (167694)
12-13-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jazzns
12-13-2004 11:02 AM


States and the Trinity
Well if that is what he is doing then Buz's comments about it not mattering so much and that Hovind is simply making it simpler for the laity are wrong.
Hovind's whole point falls to peices unless the number of states of matter is exactly and precisely three. Since they are not, and he has had lots of opportunity to know that he is a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 12-13-2004 11:02 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024