Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[Roy]

In a recent thread, Jorge stated (paraphrased) that anyone who extrapolated over 7 orders of magnitude should have their science credentials revoked.

I responded that creationists extrapolated the moon's current recession rate to that extent.

Jorge responded:

Read the published works on the Moon's recession and it's all there in black and white.

So. Do creationists use the complex information published on the moon's recession rate, or do they just extrapolate beyond reason? Here's one published creationist work on the Moon's rate of recession:

"The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies the recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon should be much farther from the earth than it is, even if it started out from the earth."

That's clearcut - whoever wrote the above should have their science credentials, if any, revoked. And in case there's any doubt, they also wrote this:

"The moon is receding. As you measure the distance to the moon, it can be seen that every year the moon gets a little bit further away. If you calculate that backward in time, you should be able to calculate approximately when the moon began to leave or was captured in our orbit. I do not believe that the moon was captured. Some people say that the moon started as a part of the Pacific Ocean and was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some. They try to use that to explain all of the volcanoes in Hawaii , saying that the crust is very thin because the moon was pulled out. The rate that the moon is receding, travelling away from the earth, indicates a very young age for the earth."

Roy

[Cow Poke]

Roy Roy,

Would it be too terribly troublesome to provide a citation, or identify who, specifically, is the "they" you are quoting?

CP CP

[robrecht]

Thomas Thomas G. G. Barnes Barnes

[Roy]

Oops! signed off twice

It's not Thomas Barnes, though that's a good guess.

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

As always TalkOrigin has a good write up on the whole Creationist debacle covering how they fudged their calculations and ignored the actual scientific data.

The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

This is not arguing by weblink, it's just providing background information.

[robrecht]

Oops! signed off twice

It's not Thomas Barnes, though that's a good guess.

Roy

Maybe some one is plagiarizing? From the Thomas Barnes link:

"The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon [w]ould be much farther [away] from the earth than it is, even if it [had] started from the earth."

[robrecht]

Kent Kent Hovind Hovind

[HMS_Beagle]

Another Creationist boneheaded extrapolation I still see occasionally is the rate of sedimentation deposit in the oceans. The argument takes two forms

1. Rivers deposit sediment into the oceans at a rate of 20 billion tons/year. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old the continents would have all eroded away 100x over by now.

or

2. Rivers deposit sediment into the oceans at a rate of 20 billion tons/year. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old the oceans would be completely filled up with sediment 100x over by now.

Both of these knuckle-headed arguments conveniently ignore the rock cycle and the subduction of the ocean floor during tectonic plate movement which moves rock from the ocean floor back to the continents.

[rogue06]

Kent Kent Hovind Hovind

Bingo Bingo

That comes from Federal Prisoner 06452-017 .... "Dr." Kent Hovind's supposed doctoral dissertation when he achieved his degree from that fine institute of higher learning, Patriot University

[klaus54]

In a recent thread, Jorge stated (paraphrased) that anyone who extrapolated over 7 orders of magnitude should have their science credentials revoked.

I responded that creationists extrapolated the moon's current recession rate to that extent.

Jorge responded:So. Do creationists use the complex information published on the moon's recession rate, or do they just extrapolate beyond reason? Here's one published creationist work on the Moon's rate of recession:

"The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies the recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon should be much farther from the earth than it is, even if it started out from the earth."

That's clearcut - whoever wrote the above should have their science credentials, if any, revoked. And in case there's any doubt, they also wrote this:

"The moon is receding. As you measure the distance to the moon, it can be seen that every year the moon gets a little bit further away. If you calculate that backward in time, you should be able to calculate approximately when the moon began to leave or was captured in our orbit. I do not believe that the moon was captured. Some people say that the moon started as a part of the Pacific Ocean and was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some. They try to use that to explain all of the volcanoes in Hawaii , saying that the crust is very thin because the moon was pulled out. The rate that the moon is receding, travelling away from the earth, indicates a very young age for the earth."

Roy

I guess "they" never heard of the inverse square law of gravitation nor tidal acceleration.

K54

[Jorge]

Bingo Bingo

That comes from Federal Prisoner 06452-017 .... "Dr." Kent Hovind's supposed doctoral dissertation when he achieved his degree from that fine institute of higher learning, Patriot University

Here's the truly sad part : given Hovind's credentials and alma mater, the scores of people that debated him with "real PhDs from real institutions" should have mopped the floor with him. Instead, the exact opposite was typically the case.

One such incident in 1998 that I recall with laughter -- against Dr. Bartelt -- was especially embarrassing for the Evolutionists. She was receiving such a wicked thrashing from Kent that right in the middle of the debate she brought out Kent's views about taxes - that he should "pay his taxes" - something that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the debate but she had to save face somehow. I have that entire debate on video tape as well as 19 other debates in which Kent totally humiliates the "real PhDs". At times Kent made them look like they served as janitors at Patriot University. Who knows, maybe they did.

So, Rogue06, if I were you -- and thank God Almighty that I'm not -- I wouldn't keep bringing up the credential schtick. I mean, if your people are getting whipped like a bad horse by people attending "Patriot University", then what does that tell you about the intellectual abilities of your heroes?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

[klaus54]

Maybe some one is plagiarizing? From the Thomas Barnes link:

"The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon [w]ould be much farther [away] from the earth than it is, even if it [had] started from the earth."

I thought Uniformitarianism was an atheist/materialist ideology?

K54

[Jorge]

In a recent thread, Jorge stated (paraphrased) that anyone who extrapolated over 7 orders of magnitude should have their science credentials revoked.

I responded that creationists extrapolated the moon's current recession rate to that extent.

Jorge responded:So. Do creationists use the complex information published on the moon's recession rate, or do they just extrapolate beyond reason? Here's one published creationist work on the Moon's rate of recession:

"The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies the recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon should be much farther from the earth than it is, even if it started out from the earth."

That's clearcut - whoever wrote the above should have their science credentials, if any, revoked. And in case there's any doubt, they also wrote this:

"The moon is receding. As you measure the distance to the moon, it can be seen that every year the moon gets a little bit further away. If you calculate that backward in time, you should be able to calculate approximately when the moon began to leave or was captured in our orbit. I do not believe that the moon was captured. Some people say that the moon started as a part of the Pacific Ocean and was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some. They try to use that to explain all of the volcanoes in Hawaii , saying that the crust is very thin because the moon was pulled out. The rate that the moon is receding, travelling away from the earth, indicates a very young age for the earth."

Roy

I will extend kindness to you, Roy, and attribute your OP to ignorance and a lack of raw IQ
instead of claiming or insinuating that it is due to a total lack of ethics / integrity. Carry on.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Here's the truly sad part : given Hovind's credentials and alma mater, the scores of people that debated him with "real PhDs from real institutions" should have mopped the floor with him. Instead, the exact opposite was typically the case.

One such incident in 1998 that I recall with laughter -- against Dr. Bartelt -- was especially embarrassing for the Evolutionists. She was receiving such a wicked thrashing from Kent that right in the middle of the debate she brought out Kent's views about taxes - that he should "pay his taxes" - something that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the debate but she had to save face somehow. I have that entire debate on video tape as well as 19 other debates in which Kent totally humiliates the "real PhDs". At times Kent made them look like they served as janitors at Patriot University. Who knows, maybe they did.

So, Rogue06, if I were you -- and thank God Almighty that I'm not -- I wouldn't keep bringing up the credential schtick. I mean, if your people are getting whipped like a bad horse by people attending "Patriot University", then what does that tell you about the intellectual abilities of your heroes?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

The Gish Gallop combined with unmitigatedly stupid whoppers constitute a ponderous enemy in an hour "debate" with a credulous ignorant audience.

BTW, El Buffo Supremo, debate is not the proper way to test scientific hypotheses.

K54

[klaus54]

...

So, Rogue06, if I were you -- and thank God Almighty that I'm not -- I wouldn't keep bringing up the credential schtick. I mean, if your people are getting whipped like a bad horse by people attending "Patriot University", then what does that tell you about the intellectual abilities of your heroes?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

Then how's come Jorgian YECs bring up the credentials of their apologists whenever it's expedient?

Can you spell H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y ??

You can't spell YeC without it.

K54

P.S. That applies mutatis mutandis to Uniformitarianism.