Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    The non-linear recession of the moon is well understood by us "dumb Biblical Creationists" - thank you. What you write above confirms once again (as if I had any doubts) that you are actually quite lost on these matters, O-Mudd. Hey, ya got'ta love that "collision with a Mars-sized object" theory. It's right up there with Directed Panspermia, Oort Cloud Theory and Phlogiston Theory.
    While you want to pretend otherwise, there is pretty good evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. There are, for instance, seven likely Oort cloud objects including Sedna (aka, 2003 VB12), which is very possibly a dwarf planet or planetoid and not a comet). It will make its closest approach to the sun in the mid 2070s and won't be back for roughly 12,000 years (it travels in an extremely elliptical orbit ranging from 76 AU to 937 AU from the Sun).

    The others are 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372, 2008 KV42 (for a bit about 2008 KV42 see HERE), 2010 GB174 and most recently 2012 VP113 (nicknamed "Biden" after the current Vice President).

    Moreover, a radio broadcast from 2006 put out by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) acknowledges that "what look like" Oort clouds have been seen around other stars (not quite 5½ minutes in). It is easier to spot things when the light source is between you and them. So why should other stars have Oort clouds but the idea that our solar system having one is utterly ridiculous?

    Until recently YECs were mocking the concept of the Kuiper belt as an ad hoc fantasy but most have quietly ceased their scoffing -- which is probably wise considering that astronomers have cataloged over a thousand Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) since the first one was detected in 1992.

    The fact is that being it is so far from the sun the Oort cloud is quite dark making the detection of objects belonging to it difficult. I mean detecting Kuiper belt objects has not been easy -- and everyone now agrees that they exist. But that still doesn't mean it is impossible to detect Oort cloud objects -- as I noted above seven likely ones have thus far been documented.

    So why there still is no definitive evidence in support for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, what we do have is more than enough to warrant a better response than mere scoffing and personal incredulity.

    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    The "giant men" that Hovind spoke of were no more than 10-11 feet tall --- I have a video where Hovind speaks of this and presents his evidence. Where you get (or fabricate) "50-ft tall or more" is anyone's guess. I personally never heard Hovind say anything like that.
    I recall that when Hovind spoke in front of our church a couple decades back that he sited supposed human footprints of humans that had to be made by humans up to 20' tall -- but I never personally heard him say that some might have been 50' tall. Still he did say that the Smithsonian Institute was actively involved in hiding the remains of giants

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Jorge,

      Why would the hypothesis of the Oort Cloud as well as nascent support for its existence be an issue for the ideology of Jorgian YECism?

      K54

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        ...
        I recall that when Hovind spoke in front of our church a couple decades back that he sited supposed human footprints of humans that had to be made by humans up to 20' tall -- but I never personally heard him say that some might have been 50' tall. Still he did say that the Smithsonian Institute was actively involved in hiding the remains of giants
        In the late 1980s Donald DeYoung of Grace College gave a talk on YEC at our church's Sunday evening service.

        One of the slides he showed was the Paluxy side-by-side "human" and dinosaur footprints. By that time it was well-known to the scientific community that the "human" footprint was a partial dinosaur footprint.

        At the Q-and-A, someone pointed this out to DeYoung (who then made it obvious he already knew about it). Don replied "Well, there's plenty of other evidence."

        Hmmm....

        K54

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          While you want to pretend otherwise, there is pretty good evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. There are, for instance, seven likely Oort cloud objects including Sedna (aka, 2003 VB12), which is very possibly a dwarf planet or planetoid and not a comet). It will make its closest approach to the sun in the mid 2070s and won't be back for roughly 12,000 years (it travels in an extremely elliptical orbit ranging from 76 AU to 937 AU from the Sun).

          The others are 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372, 2008 KV42 (for a bit about 2008 KV42 see HERE), 2010 GB174 and most recently 2012 VP113 (nicknamed "Biden" after the current Vice President).

          Moreover, a radio broadcast from 2006 put out by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) acknowledges that "what look like" Oort clouds have been seen around other stars (not quite 5½ minutes in). It is easier to spot things when the light source is between you and them. So why should other stars have Oort clouds but the idea that our solar system having one is utterly ridiculous?

          Until recently YECs were mocking the concept of the Kuiper belt as an ad hoc fantasy but most have quietly ceased their scoffing -- which is probably wise considering that astronomers have cataloged over a thousand Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) since the first one was detected in 1992.

          The fact is that being it is so far from the sun the Oort cloud is quite dark making the detection of objects belonging to it difficult. I mean detecting Kuiper belt objects has not been easy -- and everyone now agrees that they exist. But that still doesn't mean it is impossible to detect Oort cloud objects -- as I noted above seven likely ones have thus far been documented.

          So why there still is no definitive evidence in support for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, what we do have is more than enough to warrant a better response than mere scoffing and personal incredulity.


          I recall that when Hovind spoke in front of our church a couple decades back that he sited supposed human footprints of humans that had to be made by humans up to 20' tall -- but I never personally heard him say that some might have been 50' tall. Still he did say that the Smithsonian Institute was actively involved in hiding the remains of giants

          There is little point in trying to confuse Jorge with the facts. He openly supports the misquoting of Sagan on the issue (by using that same misused quote as support for his own position), a quote from a text which defines some of this same evidence in a generalized form. To Jorge, this Oort cloud will not exist till someone produces telescopic images of thousands of comets at a 50,000 AU apogee. And then he'd debate if they were really comets and not something else till we had a sample/return mission.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            There is little point in trying to confuse Jorge with the facts. He openly supports the misquoting of Sagan on the issue (by using that same misused quote as support for his own position), a quote from a text which defines some of this same evidence in a generalized form. To Jorge, this Oort cloud will not exist till someone produces telescopic images of thousands of comets at a 50,000 AU apogee. And then he'd debate if they were really comets and not something else till we had a sample/return mission.
            But I don't see WHY the Oort Cloud is a problem for him??

            K54

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              You're playing the Hovind game again. The discussion is about the Moon's recession, not Panspermia or Phologiston. Geesh!

              And can you refute the collision theory which well fits observations? Or are you automatically against it since it doesn't fit your ideology, hypocrite?

              If you mendacious dimwits understand the physics of lunar recession, why do you reject the calculations other than they don't fit your ideology, hypocrite?

              BTW, how do you and Hovind and the other Jorgian YEC "scientists" explain the Moon's tidal lock? How about the slowing rotation of Earth? How can tidal lock be explain in a 6Ka timeframe without a (non-Scriptural) miracle?

              Awaiting more bluster, flailing about, and bloviating...

              K54
              The other day I was just out walking when ahead of me I spotted some dog poop.
              I did what common sense dictates -- I simply walked around the disgusting pile.

              That scenario paints the exact picture of how I'm handling you here.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                You claim to understand it, yet then you say the Earth/Moon system can't be 4 billion years or so old because of it, demonstrating you DON'T understand. Do you not understand the significance of that. Try something simpler. A fellow comes to you and says he's a c++ expert. So you show him the following

                class A {
                int getc() { return c; }
                int c;
                };

                and you ask, write code to display the data member 'c', and he writes

                A myA;
                cout << myA.c << "\n";

                Did he demonstrate he knows c++? Did he demonstrate he knows it very well?




                Again more empty words. Nothing of substance. Nothing that indicates you have a clue about any of this.




                Yet more words where other words like your entire repertoire of posts interacting with us on TWEB, old and new, support a different conclusion




                You know, you may have gotten me on that one Jorge.

                There was another hoaxed photo going around based on some Hindu legends(really big giant hoax). I guess I don't always keep up with which hoaxer says what



                These are confirmed fossils Jorge. You find me a confirmed fossil human 11 feet tall and Hovind has a case. I'm not laughing at the possibility, I'm laughing at the obviously faked photo that Hovind used to present the idea and the fact the He (and you I guess) are duped by it and/or saddened by its willful use to deceive others.



                Again you don't seem to grasp the difference between what might be possible or what is claimed and what is supported by/contradicted by the evidence. You also don't seem to understand the difference between a claim and a hoax. A hoax is when someone FALSIFIES data and then uses it to support a claim. The 'evidence' Hovind uses to support his case for Giants is HOAXED/FALSE data. He is either to naive to know that, or does not care if it is hoaxed data, which would make him a hoaxer. Either way - YOU - ought to be able to figure all this out.


                Jim
                I'm sick and tired of 'dancing' with you, O-Mudd, so just one comment.

                Regarding the highlighted line above, I have "gotten you" far, far many more times than just this "one" but your ego, pride and hatred for Biblical Creationism will absolutely never allow you to admit this.

                More importantly on that highlight and what followed is that you seem to have concluded that I promote these 11-ft humans as "real". I DO NOT. I believe that they existed because they are spoken of in God's Word and also because there is tangible evidence (that you agree with -- how could you deny it?) of much greater sizes in the past (e.g., dragonflies). These two factors combined tell me to accept the possibility, nothing more.

                I have personally never come across hard, conclusive, reliable evidence of 11-ft human skeletons and so I don't venture past that Bible-based belief and inference from the verified evidence. That Hovind promotes them may simply be due to things that he knows and I don't. You see, I try to be HONEST and not pass a ruling without sufficient evidence. For you, OTOH, it is sufficient that Hovind is a Biblical Creationist for you to label him as you have. Once again you are exposed, O-Mudd.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  There is little point in trying to confuse Jorge with the facts. He openly supports the misquoting of Sagan on the issue (by using that same misused quote as support for his own position), a quote from a text which defines some of this same evidence in a generalized form. To Jorge, this Oort cloud will not exist till someone produces telescopic images of thousands of comets at a 50,000 AU apogee. And then he'd debate if they were really comets and not something else till we had a sample/return mission.
                  Hehehe So now your latest con is to try to pin on ME the moral standards of the
                  typical Atheist/Humanist/Theistic Evolutionist critter. WOW! You just keep sinking lower
                  and lower, O-Mudd, even after I was certain that you had attained absolute minimum.

                  In a morbid kind of way, I'm kind'a anxious to see the next howler that you'll come up with.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    I'm sick and tired of 'dancing' with you, O-Mudd, so just one comment.

                    Regarding the highlighted line above, I have "gotten you" far, far many more times than just this "one" but your ego, pride and hatred for Biblical Creationism will absolutely never allow you to admit this.

                    More importantly on that highlight and what followed is that you seem to have concluded that I promote these 11-ft humans as "real". I DO NOT. I believe that they existed because they are spoken of in God's Word and also because there is tangible evidence (that you agree with -- how could you deny it?) of much greater sizes in the past (e.g., dragonflies). These two factors combined tell me to accept the possibility, nothing more.

                    I have personally never come across hard, conclusive, reliable evidence of 11-ft human skeletons and so I don't venture past that Bible-based belief and inference from the verified evidence. That Hovind promotes them may simply be due to things that he knows and I don't. You see, I try to be HONEST and not pass a ruling without sufficient evidence. For you, OTOH, it is sufficient that Hovind is a Biblical Creationist for you to label him as you have. Once again you are exposed, O-Mudd.

                    Jorge
                    Nice tangent, but the topic of the moment was Hovind's howler videos that there WERE skeletons of 11 ft humans AND your undying support of such a person. Nobody said YOU had claimed there were skeleton's of 11 ft humans.

                    As for Hovind. I had never heard of him until I saw the video with the 'giant' skeletons. And I was simply aghast. I saw the video in a YEC sunday school class I was in to try to determine if progress had been made supporting a YE point of view. This was BEFORE I moved away from a YE position. Hovind only helped me realize how empty (scientifically) the YE position is. I think that was the last time I took YEC seriously. I'd already run into Sarfati's SN remnant's quote distortion and his attempt to brand Hugh Ross as a heretic in "refuting compromise", I'd already been branded an 'evolutionist' because I pointed out no one had a good explanation from a YE point of view for lunar craters. And with each encounter with folks like you and Hovind, it became clearer that YEC, despite its claims to the contrary, was not a scientifically supportable position. And further, that many who claim to be able to show scientific support for YEC are not rational people. They are many times vindictive and hateful - much like yourself.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Hehehe So now your latest con is to try to pin on ME the moral standards of the
                      typical Atheist/Humanist/Theistic Evolutionist critter. WOW! You just keep sinking lower
                      and lower, O-Mudd, even after I was certain that you had attained absolute minimum.

                      In a morbid kind of way, I'm kind'a anxious to see the next howler that you'll come up with.

                      Jorge
                      I don't have to do anything. You do it all by yourself. You did, in this forum, within the last few months, use that distortion of the text of the book Comets to support your contention the Oort cloud exists. That is what you DID. You words mean nothing unless they align with your actions (or at least come somewhere near them).

                      For that to happen, you would have to admit the quote is a distortion, and that there is evidence that implies some sort of source for comets out where the Oort cloud is postulated to exist. THEN you would be able to be called 'honest' as regards this particular topic.


                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        The other day I was just out walking when ahead of me I spotted some dog poop.
                        I did what common sense dictates -- I simply walked around the disgusting pile.

                        That scenario paints the exact picture of how I'm handling you here.

                        Jorge
                        For the record: No answer.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          The non-linear recession of the moon is well understood by us "dumb Biblical Creationists" - thank you.
                          So those creationist sites that are still promoting calculations that use a linear extrapolation over a far greater period than can be justified:

                          ____"The present speed of recession of the moon is known.
                          ____If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed
                          ____evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away
                          ____from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth."


                          without noting that the relationship is actually non-linear are, to borrow your phrase, so utterly dishonest that it would make Bernie Madoff blush in shame. Yet you support them anyway.

                          Roy

                          P.S. Any response to this that does not address this simple point I will request be deleted
                          Last edited by Roy; 06-23-2014, 04:56 PM.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            So those creationist sites that are still promoting calculations that use a linear extrapolation over a far greater period than can be justified:

                            ____"The present speed of recession of the moon is known.
                            ____If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed
                            ____evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away
                            ____from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth."


                            without noting that the relationship is actually non-linear are, to borrow your phrase, so utterly dishonest that it would make Bernie Madoff blush in shame. Yet you support them anyway.

                            Roy

                            P.S. Any response to this that does not address this simple point I will request be deleted
                            First, your "P.S." ending : be sure to apply that standard to yourself, you forked-tongue Dodo!

                            As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

                            What I wouldn't put past you is that you find some small, obscure BC site or person that does commit this error and then attribute the error to ALL Biblical Creationists. And/Or take something out of context. Yeah, that would fit right in with your intellectual integrity standards.

                            All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation using the present recession rate, here's why: Since the present rate is slower then using the present rate sets an upper age limit. It turns out that this upper age limit is approximately three billion years LESS than what the age of moon is according to you people (roughly 4.6 gigayears). That's quite a gap! Are you getting all of this or do you need it spelled out?

                            Now, I will be very impressed if you or any of your ideological
                            comrades here can explain your way out of that one.
                            Hehehe

                            I'll be looking to see that rebuttal - anything not addressing this will be asked to be deleted.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              For the record: No answer.

                              K54
                              I beg your pardon, I certainly did reply:

                              "I did what common sense dictates -- I simply walked around the disgusting pile."

                              That you did not like the reply is a different subject for discussion.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                First, your "P.S." ending : be sure to apply that standard to yourself, you forked-tongue Dodo!

                                As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

                                What I wouldn't put past you is that you find some small, obscure BC site or person that does commit this error and then attribute the error to ALL Biblical Creationists. And/Or take something out of context. Yeah, that would fit right in with your intellectual integrity standards.

                                All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation using the present recession rate, here's why: Since the present rate is slower then using the present rate sets an upper age limit. It turns out that this upper age limit is approximately three billion years LESS than what the age of moon is according to you people (roughly 4.6 gigayears). That's quite a gap! Are you getting all of this or do you need it spelled out?

                                Now, I will be very impressed if you or any of your ideological
                                comrades here can explain your way out of that one.
                                Hehehe

                                I'll be looking to see that rebuttal - anything not addressing this will be asked to be deleted.

                                Jorge
                                The current configuration of the continents creates a higher than 'normal' recession rate due to increased tidal friction. Your calculation is not an upper bound. Go read the TO link beagle gave.

                                Jim

                                ETA This is a perfect example of what is wrong with YEC. Jorge does not want to know or to understand. Just like he would not go find sagan's book online and validate the quote distortion. If YEC dominated, research on the Earth/moon tidal recession would have stopped with the simpler models tha do not take into account plate tectonics. Just as Jorge stops there and will not go learn why his simplified model fails.
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-24-2014, 07:47 AM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X