Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Regarding the complaints about the colour, the creationist is using these to differentiate by topic. For some reason, they feel paragraphs won't do. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If it's hard to read, highlight it all.

 

[Proteus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Just an observation given other debates, but why is it that no creationists, it seems, can use the damn quote feature?

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

They may not be used to a public forum (and all it's nifty features) where their ideas can be scrutinized by others.
They're probably more used to e-mail or something. Just a guess.
--- speculation past this line ---
Also, I suspect that the mindset that sets one up to be a creationist isn't the kind of mindset that would care much to learn about the features of a forum and how to use them, or internet etiquette at all for that fact. How many forwarded e-mails (you know, the thoughtless chain letter kind) are spread by creationists?

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

hovind as a source?

/debate over

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This poor, benighted soul is beneath your attention, Hytegia. If your only intention is taking the piss out of him, then I say have at it. Otherwise, useless drivel which shouldn't be encouraged. Hovind as a source? I mean, really? He's lost, cut him loose before the stupid rubs off on you and leaves an indelible stain of stupid on your face.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Someone pushing Hovind's canopy "theory" is beyond hope.

 

[Dustnite]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

It's hard to read this debate because the creationist is not using Comic Sans for his entire post. How am I suppose to differentiate creationist drivel from other drivel I've heard before with just different colors....sheesh...

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Taking back all biases and conclusory remarks. When the debate ends, that's when I'll judge their debate.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

As has been said, the "Young Tortucan" is in - sore! - need of a education. If it's possible to rescue this young lad from ignorance, it behoves us to assist )o(Hytegia)o( in providing him with a education.

ThePuppyTurtle has yet to post any evidence in support of his stated position in this debate.

The only one I could find is The Genesis Enigma, where the author equates the order of Biblical creation with the order of the evolution of Life on Earth, which is a post hoc, ipso propter hoc fallacy.

And even that isn't really evidence in favour of creation according to Genesis.

The Moon "evidence" was rather sad...

As the Earth's rotation slows from the Moon's (and the Sun's lesser) tidal effects - the tides lagging behind the Moon's orbit "grates" on the shallow parts of the oceans (like the Bering and Irish(!) seas ... is that why it's slowing - the "thickness" of we Irish...?? :mrgreen: ) - it results in the Earth's day gaining 1 second roughly every 100,000 years. [There goes the "11,000 years" - or less - age of the Earth!]

And "what's lost on the roundabout" (as Earth's rate of rotation slows, it loses angular momentum as well) "is gained on the swing" (the Moon's distance increases).

Eventually, the Earth will have lost so much rotation, that it will end up without tides - the tidal "bulges" permanently under the Moon (on either side of the Earth) - presenting the same face to the Moon, and the more distant Moon will turn in its orbit half as fast as at present.

To name but one problem with his "anti-evolution" evidence.

[Edit: In fact, )o(Hytegia)o( should just ask him to use the figures - for the Earth-Moon distance and the rate at which they're moving apart - to calculate how long ago they would have been touching...!!?? "Young Earht"?? Really??!!]

Kindest regards,

Jamea

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

(as Earth's rate of rotation slows, it loses angular momentum as well) "is gained on the swing" (the Moon's distance increases).

True, but I'd like to point out for completeness that the Earth-Moon system as a whole gains angular momentum from the exchange.

Edit: In fact, )o(Hytegia)o( should just ask him to use the figures - for the Earth-Moon distance and the rate at which they're moving apart - to calculate how long ago they would have been touching...!!?? "Young Earht"?? Really??!!

The rate at which this occurs is not constant. What you would end up doing, if you took the current rate for the lunar escape rate, da/dt, and played it backwards to estimate that, you would get an artificially high value (and thus an artificially old Earth-moon system). da/dt decreases with time as the Earth-moon separation increases, the tidal amplitude on Earth decreases, and it's effect on the moon declines.
Way back when, the tides would have been enormous, driving much faster da/dt.

In summary, the math would be a bit more complicated than the creation-advocate would probably have the ability to accurately do.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

(as Earth's rate of rotation slows, it loses angular momentum as well) "is gained on the swing" (the Moon's distance increases).

True, but I'd like to point out for completeness that the Earth-Moon system as a whole gains angular momentum from the exchange.

Of course - but I don't want to complicate things too much if Hytegia should mention it to TPT.

Edit: In fact, )o(Hytegia)o( should just ask him to use the figures - for the Earth-Moon distance and the rate at which they're moving apart - to calculate how long ago they would have been touching...!!?? "Young Earht"?? Really??!!

The rate at which this occurs is not constant. What you would end up doing, if you took the current rate for the lunar escape rate, da/dt, and played it backwards to estimate that, you would get an artificially high value (and thus an artificially old Earth-moon system). da/dt decreases with time as the Earth-moon separation increases, the tidal amplitude on Earth decreases, and it's effect on the moon declines.
Way back when, the tides would have been enormous, driving much faster da/dt.

In summary, the math would be a bit more complicated than the creation-advocate would probably have the ability to accurately do.

My real reason for doing so, RigelKentaurusA, was due to his remark:

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-find ... from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

... which is complete nonsense - as he'd understand if he just calculated the answer.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Oh I see. I should read the debate thread more before partaking in a discussion about it. :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

Well, no harm done!

I'd just hope - trust! - that the calculated figure would show him that his idea of a young Earth can not be correct.

[And that his belief in Hovind is completely unwarranted.]

As long as he feels secure in the knowledge that this doesn't do away with (his faith in) God, he should be amenable to changing his mind about these dates.

That's the important distinction to make for him.

If people - "evil atheists" - try and question that faith or dismiss the existence of God, then we'll lose our chance to rescue him from "fundie-dom".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Yeah, I have noticed that as well.

"Your religion is a bunch of bullshit" vs "Here's what the facts say, and they don't necessarily contradict the existence of god." Both are true, but the latter is better received. Of course the major hurdle is to convince them that the Bible is incorrect. "Here's what the facts say -- No flood."
Once you get them to realise the Bible is inconsistent and in contradiction with reality, they can probably make the rest of the trip on their own anyway.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

True, it's best not to ask too big a "leap-of-faith" :facepalm: of the OP - or, indeed, any YEC.

I do wish )o(Hytegia)o( - *waves frantically to gain his attention* - would ask him to calculate it and post his result - and his thoughts on what that implies...

For example, given ThePuppyTurtle's assumption of the Earth and Moon "touching" ...

1) Earth-Moon Distance
This is given - from the Space - How Far Is The Moon From The Earth? site - as:

384,392 kilometres

Or...

384,392,000 metres

2) Rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth
This is given - from the Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? site - as:

3.8 centimetres/year

Or...

38 centimetres/decade

Or...

0.38 metres/decade

3) Calculating the result
This gives the following figure:

384,392,000 metres * 0.38 metres/decade = 146068960 decades

Or...

1,460,689,600 years

4) If the Earth is only 11,000 years old, how far would the Moon have travelled in that time?
Well, again, assuming they started off "touching", from the above figures...

a) 0.38 metres/decade;
b) 11,000 years = 1100 decades

0.38 metres * 1100 = 418 metres

Even bearing in mind that these calculations do not take into account the inverse square law, etc, etc, this can - in no way - be mistaken for a date consistent with that of a "Young Earth", as he contends!

Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

Regarding ThePuppyTurtle's "evidence" that pollonium "halos" prove a "Young Earth"...

The Wiki article on Robert V. Gentry gives links to three sites which criticize his hypothesis.

TalkOrigins critique
Alternative ways to produce Po "halos"
AnswersInGenesis review of De Young's book - although this is a Creationist site - with some very unscientific claims regarding "The Flood", etc - it not only disagrees with Gentry's claims regarding Po "halos" being proof of a "Young Earth", it actually links to TalkOrigins website as proof of the debunking!! :facepalm:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This poor, benighted soul is beneath your attention, Hytegia. If your only intention is taking the piss out of him, then I say have at it. Otherwise, useless drivel which shouldn't be encouraged. Hovind as a source? I mean, really? He's lost, cut him loose before the stupid rubs off on you and leaves an indelible stain of stupid on your face.

I think that is indeed his intention.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

3) Calculating the result
This gives the following figure:

384,392,000 metres * 0.38 metres/decade = 146068960 decades

Or...

1,460,689,600 years

Correction: you have to divide instead of multiply.

So it's 384,392,000 metres / 0.38 metres/decade = 1,011,557,895 decades

Or

10,115,578,947 years.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greatest,

3) Calculating the result
This gives the following figure:

384,392,000 metres * 0.38 metres/decade = 146068960 decades

Or...

1,460,689,600 years

Correction: you have to divide instead of multiply.

So it's 384,392,000 metres / 0.38 metres/decade = 1,011,557,895 decades

Or

10,115,578,947 years.

*coughs* :facepalm:

Yes - of course... I should have - meant to - multiplied it by 1/0.38 or 2.6315789473684210526315789473684 (... to be precise ...) giving:

1011557894.7368421052631578947368 decades

Or...

10115578947.368421052631578947368 years.

* Overkills on "accuracy" in vain hope of saving face *

[* Desperately hopes this won't appear in the "Stupidest Thing..." !! *]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

[* Desperately hopes this won't appear in the "Stupidest Thing..." !! *]

Well, technically speaking, it doesn't belong there since you aren't a creationist. But it might not be a bad idea to start a thread containing some stupid quotes from the regular contributors. I don't think any of us are innocent of the occasional bout of idiocy. And it's always fun to take the wind out of each others sails and give each other regular humility enemas.