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

  • #91
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This article is an example in that the author, Thomas Barnes, only holds an honorary Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc. or Sc.D.) degree given to him by Hardin-Simmons University (HSU) in Abilene, Texas. IOW this is an instance of the sort of credential mongering that YECs so often engage in.
    At least his degree is from a genuine institution, unlike those of Carl Baugh, Richard Bliss, Clifford Burdick, Kent Hovind and Harold Slusher.

    Roy
    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


    • #92
      Originally posted by Roy View Post
      At least his degree is from a genuine institution, unlike those of Carl Baugh, Richard Bliss, Clifford Burdick, Kent Hovind and Harold Slusher.

      Roy
      IIRC he did hold some sort of actual degree other than the honorary one that he or ICR decided would impress the readers with.

      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        IIRC he did hold some sort of actual degree other than the honorary one that he or ICR decided would impress the readers with.
        Sticking with the same clown ...

        In just a few hours, a barrage of posts - I must've struck yet another raw nerve!

        Please feel free to start one of your "Victory Parades" - you know, the ones that
        you always hold whenever you hurl so many elephants at an opponent that he is
        left with only two choices: give up his life to handle all the elephants or let you "win".

        The evidence that I supplied is clear enough for anyone with a grade-level reading
        ability and the integrity of an average person. It is apparent that both are lacking
        with you people. R06, in particular, keeps repeating that "it is on their website that
        they use a linear regression rate". THAT WAS EXPLAINED, you Demented Dodo!!!
        As for Beagle Boy -- nothing really has to be said, right? I mean, Pfffftttt!

        Oh and, of course (how could I forget?), you people wouldn't be yourselves if you
        didn't bring in the ol' "Credentialistic Schtick" --- heck, that's like your calling card!


        The rest of all your nonsense isn't worth any more of my time. Like I said, you may
        commence your "Victory Parade" whenever you wish. I'll just watch as cuckoos pass by.

        Jorge
        Last edited by Jorge; 06-24-2014, 04:08 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Jorge,

          How can you be so arrogant in the face of the factual lambasting you're receiving in this thread?

          K54

          P.S. I mean POPCORN? Really...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            THAT WAS EXPLAINED
            Let me get this straight... are you saying that the article you cite by Jonathan Henry on Creation Ministries International (CMI) somehow refutes the fact that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has an article that promotes the linear recession rate, as well as your claim that ICR "do[es] not make this error"? Is that right?

            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


            • #96
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Sticking with the same clown ...

              Jorge
              Apparently that would be you Jorge since you've seen factual rebuttals of all your nonsensical "lunar recession" claims. Thanks for demonstrating to everyone yet again how graciously you handle being shown wrong.

              Why do you suppose CMI quote-mined and lied so badly about that paper on the lunar orbital inclination?
              Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 06-24-2014, 05:01 PM. Reason: typo

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                The evidence that I supplied is clear enough for anyone with a grade-level reading
                ability and the integrity of an average person. It is apparent that both are lacking
                with you people. R06, in particular, keeps repeating that "it is on their website that
                they use a linear regression rate". THAT WAS EXPLAINED, you Demented Dodo!!!
                Yes - the explanation is that the ICR is "so utterly dishonest that it would make Bernie Madoff blush in shame."

                What has not been explained is why Jorge claimed that the ICR would not do something that he had just cited them doing.

                Roy
                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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  I had a hard time deciding on whom to respond to - you, O-Mudd or Beagle Boy since you all flunked. I finally decided to respond to your post which will also answer the other two.

                  Beginning with yours, all I can say is that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ!
                  My earlier post more-than-adequately addresses and answers what you bring up here. Geesh !!!

                  O-Mudd and Beagle Boy -- allies as usual -- make the same sophomoric blunder (no surprises here).


                  From the ... equation, the time for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to the present distance is 1.3 billion years. Without introducing tidal parameters ... this is the moon’s highest allowable evolutionary age ... This is a serious challenge to the belief that the moon is 4.6 Ga old.

                  " ... [one] response has been to minimize the lunar recession rate. NASA put the current recession rate at 3.8 cm/yr, which is at the lower end of the range of lunar recession rates ...

                  However, if the moon’s distance r had ever been much smaller than its current value ... the recession rate ... ‘must have been much larger in earlier times’. George Darwin stated, ‘Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us’, a view echoed much more recently by Verhoogen."


                  SOME REFERENCES IN THE ABOVE:

                  -Dickey, J., Bender, P., Faller, J., Newhill, X., Ricklefs, R., Ries, J., Shelus, P., Veillet, C., Whipple, A., Wiant, J., Williams, J. and Yoder, C., Lunar laser ranging: a continuing legacy of the Apollo program, Science 265:482–490, 1994; p. 486.

                  -Verhoogen, J., Energetics of the Earth, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, p. 22, 1980.

                  http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age


                  Crawl into a corner, assume the fetal position, suck on your thumb and remain silent.
                  Unless you can genuinely refute any of this, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

                  Funniest of all is Beagle Boy who keeps parroting the same stupid error time and again.
                  Good LORD, thank you so much that I am NOT Beagle Boy. Bwahahahaha !!!

                  Jorge
                  Jorge - all you are doing is quoting analysis of the problem that is not current research?!?!? You need to understand that these simplistic extrapolations have been expounded on substantially. There have been BOTH detailed analysis of the effects of the continental motions and shapes on lunar recession as well as analysis of historical tidal action and frequency found in various fossil beds (tidal activities leave records in certain kinds of sediments). The result is a consilient analysis that shows the recession rate was much slower in the past, due to the tendency for the planet to have one large single continent and not multiple and varied continents as we do now.

                  IOW, if you create a computer model of the Earth/Moon tidal interations that includes the continental variation implied through geological studies, you get variations in recession rate that coincide with those implied by the rate of deposition of tidal action driven sediments. Further, those recession rates are fully consistent with a 4 billion year old Earth/Moon system.

                  When you ignore this research, you chose willful ignorance. Why would you think that your simplified models circa the 1960's should trump the serious and significant research that has followed? Do you not understand that is what science does? It seeks to find answers to problems using a specific method that has shown itself to be extremely reliable. But it does not force the data to fit a specific conclusion.

                  What is happening here is that you are projecting the YEC methodology onto mainstream science. YEC picks the data that fits is presuppositions. And then works to force the data to fit that same presupposition. Mainstream science lets the data drive the conclusions, and then when two sets of data drive disparate conclusions, work is done to determine which conclusion is correct. In this case, all the factors driving recession had not been explored early on in the '60s with the initial estimates were performed which produced the ~1 billion year extrapolations. Geological data was analyzed to get a direct measure and it showed a significantly smaller recession rate average than measured today. So additional factors were analyzed, new data was discovered (plate tectonics specifically) and the conclusions of that analysis showed a convergent solution consistent with that indicated by other measures (e.g. radioisotopic dating of the Earth/Moon system)

                  The two approaches are completely different Jorge. Your problem is you are projecting what you and your cohorts in YEC do (and call science) with what is done in the mainstream. And the two are COMPLETELY different.



                  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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    I had a hard time deciding on whom to respond to - you, O-Mudd or Beagle Boy since you all flunked. I finally decided to respond to your post which will also answer the other two.

                    Beginning with yours, all I can say is that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ!
                    My earlier post more-than-adequately addresses and answers what you bring up here. Geesh !!!

                    O-Mudd and Beagle Boy -- allies as usual -- make the same sophomoric blunder (no surprises here).


                    From the ... equation, the time for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to the present distance is 1.3 billion years. Without introducing tidal parameters ... this is the moon’s highest allowable evolutionary age ... This is a serious challenge to the belief that the moon is 4.6 Ga old.

                    " ... [one] response has been to minimize the lunar recession rate. NASA put the current recession rate at 3.8 cm/yr, which is at the lower end of the range of lunar recession rates ...

                    However, if the moon’s distance r had ever been much smaller than its current value ... the recession rate ... ‘must have been much larger in earlier times’. George Darwin stated, ‘Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us’, a view echoed much more recently by Verhoogen."


                    SOME REFERENCES IN THE ABOVE:

                    -Dickey, J., Bender, P., Faller, J., Newhill, X., Ricklefs, R., Ries, J., Shelus, P., Veillet, C., Whipple, A., Wiant, J., Williams, J. and Yoder, C., Lunar laser ranging: a continuing legacy of the Apollo program, Science 265:482–490, 1994; p. 486.

                    -Verhoogen, J., Energetics of the Earth, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, p. 22, 1980.

                    http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age


                    Crawl into a corner, assume the fetal position, suck on your thumb and remain silent.
                    Unless you can genuinely refute any of this, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

                    Funniest of all is Beagle Boy who keeps parroting the same stupid error time and again.
                    Good LORD, thank you so much that I am NOT Beagle Boy. Bwahahahaha !!!

                    Jorge
                    Jorge, as others have explained, you are merely parroting YEC errors on this topic. (This is a common problem in evangelical churches. Non-specialists have been so convinced by the smooth, slick presentations of YEC organizations that they believe everything coming out of ICR, AiG, etc. They can't conceive that these highly-trained, persecuted scientists might be presenting bogus science, or worse, that they might be intentionally lying to the faithful.)

                    I independently researched the lunar recession "problem" back in the 1980's, when I was in physics graduate school. This was before Al Gore invented the Internet. I believe talk.origins existed as a Usenet group, but I did my research the old-fashioned way, with library searches. I found a good review article which explained the dynamics of the earth-moon-tidal system, I believe in Scientific American (I can't seem to find the article now, unfortunately.). What I found backed up what others are telling you.

                    This is an interesting multi body dynamics problem, especially for a physics grad student. Tidal friction removes kinetic energy from the system, causing two effects: 1) the moon recedes from earth, and 2) days become longer. The rate at which this occurs depends on the amount of tidal friction, which depends almost exclusively on the area of shallow oceans (continental shelf) near the equator. If one believes in continental drift, this tidal friction would have been MUCH smaller in the past, and is now near its maximum. The scientific picture hangs together, and is consistent with a 4.65 billion year old earth.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Jorge - all you are doing is quoting analysis of the problem that is not current research?!?!? You need to understand that these simplistic extrapolations have been expounded on substantially. There have been BOTH detailed analysis of the effects of the continental motions and shapes on lunar recession as well as analysis of historical tidal action and frequency found in various fossil beds (tidal activities leave records in certain kinds of sediments). The result is a consilient analysis that shows the recession rate was much slower in the past, due to the tendency for the planet to have one large single continent and not multiple and varied continents as we do now.

                      IOW, if you create a computer model of the Earth/Moon tidal interations that includes the continental variation implied through geological studies, you get variations in recession rate that coincide with those implied by the rate of deposition of tidal action driven sediments. Further, those recession rates are fully consistent with a 4 billion year old Earth/Moon system.

                      When you ignore this research, you chose willful ignorance. Why would you think that your simplified models circa the 1960's should trump the serious and significant research that has followed? Do you not understand that is what science does? It seeks to find answers to problems using a specific method that has shown itself to be extremely reliable. But it does not force the data to fit a specific conclusion.

                      What is happening here is that you are projecting the YEC methodology onto mainstream science. YEC picks the data that fits is presuppositions. And then works to force the data to fit that same presupposition. Mainstream science lets the data drive the conclusions, and then when two sets of data drive disparate conclusions, work is done to determine which conclusion is correct. In this case, all the factors driving recession had not been explored early on in the '60s with the initial estimates were performed which produced the ~1 billion year extrapolations. Geological data was analyzed to get a direct measure and it showed a significantly smaller recession rate average than measured today. So additional factors were analyzed, new data was discovered (plate tectonics specifically) and the conclusions of that analysis showed a convergent solution consistent with that indicated by other measures (e.g. radioisotopic dating of the Earth/Moon system)

                      The two approaches are completely different Jorge. Your problem is you are projecting what you and your cohorts in YEC do (and call science) with what is done in the mainstream. And the two are COMPLETELY different.

                      Jim
                      Thanks for keeping it as "civil" as you did.

                      That said, unless I forget I am pretty much done on this thread with you, O-Mudd. I mean, there is no reaching you - you just keep pulling stuff out of the wood pile as you need it (I'm being nice also). Now it's "NEW research has been done". Good freagin' grief!!!

                      Well, the laws of physics remain the same ... Conservation of Angular Momentum is still the same. But you people do WHATEVER you need to do in order to retain your beliefs and there is simply no way to combat that. It's an endless stream of %#$*&(/@ to defend against.

                      READ MY LIPS: that is D-I-S-H-O-N-E-S-T and is definitely neither scholarly nor science. It's like the matter regarding soft tissue, DNA and red blood cells found in fossils that had been dated to close-and-over 100 million years. No one would believe it because hard science said NO WAY! When they could no longer avoid the evidence -- it was right there and confirmed! -- then the next step was Plan B - to concoct/imagine ways that this could be. But UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES was it allowed to even whisper the obvious possibility that, "Hey, maybe this stuff ISN'T tens of millions years old." That would have meant instant excommunication for the poor fool that dared it.

                      See, the "gigayears/Evolution" conclusion has already been cast in bronze. Now the "facts" are twisted so as to conform to that conclusion and NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE will change it. Which is why it so sooooooooooooo ironic - busting every Irony Meter this side of the galaxy - when R06 posts the related cartoon against Biblical Creationists.

                      I'll never accept such dishonesty - not now, not ever. And for that, people like yourself will refer to me as you have often done or insinuated - as "anti-science / anti-truth".

                      Despicable!

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Well, the laws of physics remain the same ... Conservation of Angular Momentum is still the same. But you people do WHATEVER you need to do in order to retain your beliefs and there is simply no way to combat that. It's an endless stream of %#$*&(/@ to defend against.
                        What in the mainstream scientific explanation violates the conservation of angular momentum? Try backing up your claims instead of just ranting.

                        Despicable!
                        For a supposed Christian your behavior certainly is.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          Here's another bit of unintended humor from Jorge's CMI "science" site. The YECs there also make this claim about the moon's orbital inclination



                          The quote is a blatantly dishonest quote-mine of the actual paper which explained the inclination history. Here's the paper



                          Jorge gets his "science" from sites like this that shamelessly lie about virtually every aspect of the science. Yet Jorge swallows every lie because it agrees with his preconceived TRUTH.
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Thanks for keeping it as "civil" as you did.

                          That said, unless I forget I am pretty much done on this thread with you, O-Mudd. I mean, there is no reaching you - you just keep pulling stuff out of the wood pile as you need it (I'm being nice also). Now it's "NEW research has been done". Good freagin' grief!!!

                          Well, the laws of physics remain the same ... Conservation of Angular Momentum is still the same. But you people do WHATEVER you need to do in order to retain your beliefs and there is simply no way to combat that. It's an endless stream of %#$*&(/@ to defend against
                          Jorge,

                          Conservation of angular momentum and the rate of momentum transfer are independent concepts.

                          As for the rest of your rant. Your extrapolation is from an analysis done in the 1960's. The research I refer to is new only in relation to that same 1960's analysis.

                          The real problem you face is also the reason why any competant layman can destroy the arguments of even brilliant YECs like Humphreys or Sarfati or Wise.

                          That problem is this: The Earth and Universe are actually billions of years old. That means that every dataset is in fact consistent with every other dataset assuming the correct number of years for each.

                          When apparent problems arise, there will ALWAYS be a 100% consiliant solution out there to be discovered because reality is always consistent with itself.

                          And no matter how brilliant the YEC, every 'evidence' for YEC will ultimately fail some basic consistency test with some other data set and/or it will be equally consistent with the billion year ages.

                          I don't have to be brilliant Jorge. I just need to let the data speak for itself..

                          Jim
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-24-2014, 10:06 PM.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Jorge,

                            Conservation of angular momentum and the rate of momentum transfer are independent concepts.

                            As for the rest of your rant. Your extrapolation is from an analysis done in the 1960's. The research I refer to is new only in relation to that same 1960's analysis.

                            The real problem you face is also the reason why any competant layman can destroy the arguments of even brilliant YECs like Humphreys or Sarfati or Wise.

                            That problem is this: The Earth and Universe are actually billions of years old. That means that every dataset is in fact consistent with every other dataset assuming the correct number of years for each.

                            When apparent problems arise, there will ALWAYS be a 100% consiliant solution out there to be discovered because reality is always consistent with itself.

                            And no matter how brilliant the YEC, every 'evidence' for YEC will ultimately fail some basic consistency test with some other data set and/or it will be equally consistent with the billion year ages.

                            I don't have to be brilliant Jorge. I just need to let the data speak for itself..

                            Jim
                            Yeah ... uh-huh ... So, how's the weather in your neck of the woods, Jim?

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Yeah ... uh-huh ... So, how's the weather in your neck of the woods, Jim?

                              Jorge
                              Consistent.

                              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


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                Yeah ... uh-huh ... So, how's the weather in your neck of the woods, Jim?

                                Jorge
                                Just curious if any of you YECs out there in TWebLand are proud of your boy?

                                He's getting lots of "points" (whatever those are).

                                K54

                                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
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X