PDA

View Full Version : A question for old earth believers

jesus_freak
14th June 2007, 11:01 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

Dustin Kesselberg
14th June 2007, 11:09 PM
You should probably confine these questions to a single thread. Simply "Questions from Jesus_Freak" would do.

BTW, Good question. Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

Kahalachan
14th June 2007, 11:10 PM
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124

Looks like a decent source since the url is .edu

Taffer
14th June 2007, 11:18 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

I am not an astronomer, but the equation you use is not linear. It does not move away at a fixed 3 inches every year, but rather it moving away that fast at the moment. It all has to do with complicated angular momentum and gravity questions, which I don't pretend to understand.

By the way, there is more evidence for an 'old earth' then there is evidence we landed on the moon, JF. Just FYI.

thomps1d
14th June 2007, 11:20 PM
Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

If by "invent", you mean "do research", and by "weasel out of it", you mean "answer his question", then you are quite correct.

Aside from a multitude of hits brought up by a simple Google search that thoroughly delve into this question, a ten-second perusal of the Talk.Origins Index to Creationist Claims finds this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

Which gives a simple, concise explanation - as well as plenty of references to more detailed sources.

Ahh...basic research. So simple, so refreshing, so easy to help banish ignorance...

Beleth
14th June 2007, 11:23 PM
This is Creationist Claim CE110 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html), "the moon is receding at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old."

Bah, I've been beaten to the punch.

Dustin Kesselberg
14th June 2007, 11:28 PM
If by "invent", you mean "do research", and by "weasel out of it", you mean "answer his question", then you are quite correct.

Aside from a multitude of hits brought up by a simple Google search that thoroughly delve into this question, a ten-second perusal of the Talk.Origins Index to Creationist Claims finds this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

Which gives a simple, concise explanation - as well as plenty of references to more detailed sources.

Ahh...basic research. So simple, so refreshing, so easy to help banish ignorance...

That's not an answer. If I Google "Ghost Hunters" I get a multitude of hits from people who claim to hunt ghosts. Does this mean it's legitimate? Or even answers anything?

Taffer
14th June 2007, 11:43 PM
That's not an answer. If I Google "Ghost Hunters" I get a multitude of hits from people who claim to hunt ghosts. Does this mean it's legitimate? Or even answers anything?

You do know what a scientific paper is, right?

Beleth
14th June 2007, 11:49 PM
Or what peer review means?

Dustin Kesselberg
14th June 2007, 11:49 PM
You do know what a scientific paper is, right?

Marquis de Carabas
14th June 2007, 11:51 PM
The moon is receding from the earth at about 3 inches per year. Why can't God keep the moon where it's supposed to be?

Taffer
14th June 2007, 11:51 PM

You're quoting the Journal of Parapsychology as a reputable scientific journal...

Taffer
14th June 2007, 11:53 PM
Oh, and why is this thread in R&P?

Dustin Kesselberg
14th June 2007, 11:53 PM
You're quoting the Journal of Parapsychology as a reputable scientific journal...

It's reputable. It's peer reviewed as well and publishes numerous world renowned scientists including many noble laureates.

TriangleMan
14th June 2007, 11:53 PM
Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

3 inches/yr x 4,500,000,000yrs x 1 foot/12 inches x 1 mile/5280 feet = 213,068 miles! Ergo the math in your example is blatantly wrong. 1.125 billion miles - where the heck did that come from??

AND it assumes that the 3 inches amount is correct whereas the usual figures I hear are 3-4 centimetres or around 1.5 inches. I'd like to see a reference for the 3 inches figure please.

AND it assumes that the rate of recession is constant throughout the 4.5 billion year period, which other posters have already addressed.

Next.

prewitt81
14th June 2007, 11:59 PM
You should probably confine these questions to a single thread. Simply "Questions from Jesus_Freak" would do.

BTW, Good question. Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

Quick, someone invent physics!

thomps1d
15th June 2007, 12:02 AM
That's not an answer. If I Google "Ghost Hunters" I get a multitude of hits from people who claim to hunt ghosts. Does this mean it's legitimate? Or even answers anything?

Does it answer anything? Well, that depends on your ability to analyze and understand the basics of rational academic discourse.

When you do a search for the recession rate of the moon being incompatible with an old universe, you get two main types of results:

1) Scientific answers which state: "This is why the recession rate of the moon is perfectly compatible with an old universe. Here are the applicable arguments from astronomy and physics, along with the math to demonstrate precisely how the recession rate of the moon is determined, and that it is not constant."

2) Young earth creationists whose arguments go something like this: "D00d!11!!11eleventyone!! The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3 centimeters per year which, if I do my math right, means that in an old universe the moon should have receded by eleventy billion miles! Obviously, those fools with their 'science' and 'book-learning' don't know anything!"

Even if you find one of those rare young-earth creationists sites which tries to sound reasonable and academic rather than reactionary, you still ultimately have two choices. Do you put more trust in:

a) A well-reasoned and researched article which clearly and concisely lays out the precise conditions which govern the movement of near-earth astronomical bodies, as well as how those conditions have historically affected the movement of the moon.

or

b) "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

The same applies if you do a search for ghost hunters, or any other topic which you suspect may be bunk. Is the article you are reading clear, concise, well-researched, and written by people with genuine experience in the field? Does any scientific component of the argument properly adhere to the scientific method? Have the results of any experiment been verified? Are there alternative explanations for the phenomena in question? Does the argument put forth ask "the hard questions", or is it full of "fluff"?

This is the very essence of skepticism - the ability to question, the urge to discover, and the testicular fortitude to accept when your dearly-held beliefs are found to be incorrect.

Taffer
15th June 2007, 12:10 AM
It's reputable. It's peer reviewed as well and publishes numerous world renowned scientists including many noble laureates.

Whatever you say, Dustin...

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 12:20 AM
Does it answer anything? Well, that depends on your ability to analyze and understand the basics of rational academic discourse.

When you do a search for the recession rate of the moon being incompatible with an old universe, you get two main types of results:

1) Scientific answers which state: "This is why the recession rate of the moon is perfectly compatible with an old universe. Here are the applicable arguments from astronomy and physics, along with the math to demonstrate precisely how the recession rate of the moon is determined, and that it is not constant."

2) Young earth creationists whose arguments go something like this: "D00d!11!!11eleventyone!! The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3 centimeters per year which, if I do my math right, means that in an old universe the moon should have receded by eleventy billion miles! Obviously, those fools with their 'science' and 'book-learning' don't know anything!"

Even if you find one of those rare young-earth creationists sites which tries to sound reasonable and academic rather than reactionary, you still ultimately have two choices. Do you put more trust in:

a) A well-reasoned and researched article which clearly and concisely lays out the precise conditions which govern the movement of near-earth astronomical bodies, as well as how those conditions have historically affected the movement of the moon.

or

b) "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

The same applies if you do a search for ghost hunters, or any other topic which you suspect may be bunk. Is the article you are reading clear, concise, well-researched, and written by people with genuine experience in the field? Does any scientific component of the argument properly adhere to the scientific method? Have the results of any experiment been verified? Are there alternative explanations for the phenomena in question? Does the argument put forth ask "the hard questions", or is it full of "fluff"?

This is the very essence of skepticism - the ability to question, the urge to discover, and the testicular fortitude to accept when your dearly-held beliefs are found to be incorrect.

Is it "Skepticism" you're defining here or narrow perceptions of the world? Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority? I've seen many that do.

prewitt81
15th June 2007, 12:22 AM
Ok, two can play at this game.

Since 1979, global temperature has risen about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit. Using your "logic", that means that 6000 years ago, the globe must have been approximately 150 degrees cooler than it is now. That would make the hottest places on the planet about -30 degrees.

Funny that the Bible doesn't mention how cold it was everywhere.

Brilliant work, guys. Watch these skeptojerks weasel a way past this fortress of smartitude.

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 12:27 AM
Ok, two can play at this game.

Since 1979, global temperature has risen about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit. Using your "logic", that means that 6000 years ago, the globe must have been approximately 150 degrees cooler than it is now. That would make the hottest places on the planet about -30 degrees.

Funny that the Bible doesn't mention how cold it was everywhere.

Brilliant work, guys. Watch these skeptojerks weasel a way past this fortress of smartitude.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.

athon
15th June 2007, 12:29 AM
3 inches/yr x 4,500,000,000yrs x 1 foot/12 inches x 1 mile/5280 feet = 213,068 miles! Ergo the math in your example is blatantly wrong. 1.125 billion miles - where the heck did that come from??

AND it assumes that the 3 inches amount is correct whereas the usual figures I hear are 3-4 centimetres or around 1.5 inches. I'd like to see a reference for the 3 inches figure please.

AND it assumes that the rate of recession is constant throughout the 4.5 billion year period, which other posters have already addressed.

Next.

Quoted so it's noted. ;)

Come on lads - this is one big weasel we've got here. Skin it while it's warm.

Athon

thomps1d
15th June 2007, 12:29 AM
Is it "Skepticism" you're defining here or narrow perceptions of the world? Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority? I've seen many that do.

Not narrow perceptions of the world at all - quite the opposite. What I'm defining is the ability to have an objective, honest view of the world which is not narrowed or limited by preconceptions or dogma, but is rather tempered by an understanding of how the world works.

ETA: As for the second part of your argument, that creationist web sites can have well thought-out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority, please provide some that do - I've never seen any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

PixyMisa
15th June 2007, 12:30 AM
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.
You mean that the trend is not linear over extended time frames?

prewitt81
15th June 2007, 12:30 AM
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.

My point is that you just cannot extend a current trend back linearly like the OP tries to. There can be other factors at work.

Beleth
15th June 2007, 12:31 AM
Is it "Skepticism" you're defining here or narrow perceptions of the world? Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority? I've seen many that do.
I'd love to see them too. Care to post links?

PixyMisa
15th June 2007, 12:31 AM
Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority?
I don't know, Dustin. Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority?
I've seen many that do.
Name one.

athon
15th June 2007, 12:32 AM
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.

I never quite know whether you're playing dimwitted or whether you really do struggle to make connections.

Try looking at the connection here; both your claim and prewitt's analogy rely on the assumption of a linear relationship, something which doesn't fit with either the climate model (hence why his analogy demonstrates a nonsense conclusion) or with the physics of an orbiting satellite (why your conclusion is nonsense).

I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Athon

PixyMisa
15th June 2007, 12:34 AM
I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.
While this effect is somewhat unnerving, it does pass within an hour or two.

Not yet sure what the cumulative effect might be, though.

thomps1d
15th June 2007, 12:35 AM
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.(snip)

That's exactly what we've been trying to get across to you. Here is the point:

The behaviour of the universe contains variables as well as constants. Just as we can demonstrate mechanisms whereby overall global temperatures can be variable, we can also demonstrate mechanisms whereby the recession of a celestial object such as the moon relative to earth can be variable.

Since we can demonstrate that the recession rate of the moon relative to the earth is variable, arguments based upon the assumption that it is a static rate should be dismissed as either ill-informed or dishonest.

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 12:40 AM
I never quite know whether you're playing dimwitted or whether you really do struggle to make connections.

Try looking at the connection here; both your claim and prewitt's analogy rely on the assumption of a linear relationship, something which doesn't fit with either the climate model (hence why his analogy demonstrates a nonsense conclusion) or with the physics of an orbiting satellite (why your conclusion is nonsense).

I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Athon

What claim did I make? I never made any claims.

athon
15th June 2007, 12:46 AM
What claim did I make? I never made any claims.

My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 12:47 AM
My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon

You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

prewitt81
15th June 2007, 12:50 AM
Get real. You implied that the only responses to the OP would be weaseling and require an invented solution. You're wearing an "I Support the OP" t-shirt for eff's sake.

Hokulele
15th June 2007, 12:52 AM
I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Athon

The stupid, it hertz.

Zep
15th June 2007, 12:56 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?Where I by gas for my car, this week the price is \$1.30 per litre (sorry, we use metric here). Last week it was \$1.25. That's a rise in price of 5 cents in one week.

Using your reasoning, 25 weeks ago (about six months), gas would have been given away for free. And a year ago, they would have paid me to take it.

Agree?

Zep
15th June 2007, 12:58 AM
My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

AthonDustin's point seems to be to have a nasty dig wherever and however he can. He's far from serious, just being a *****-stirrer.

TriangleMan
15th June 2007, 12:58 AM
While we wait for jesus_freak to reply: Dustin, do you have any disagreement with the analysis that I posted that shows that JF's argument is incorrect?

athon
15th June 2007, 12:58 AM
You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

There were two questions in my post and you ignored both of them to wax some rhetoric about 'text not having a tone'.

So I'll try again and see if you ignore it a second time; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon

noblecaboose
15th June 2007, 01:07 AM
You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

Then what exactly should you judge people's beliefs on? Not much, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2691995&postcount=366) apparently.
:rolleyes:

(Man, my eyes are getting tired from all of this :rolleyes:ing.)

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 01:09 AM
While we wait for jesus_freak to reply: Dustin, do you have any disagreement with the analysis that I posted that shows that JF's argument is incorrect?

No. I agree that the Moon's drift from the earth has nothing to do with the earths age.

athon
15th June 2007, 01:12 AM
No. I agree that the Moon's drift from the earth has nothing to do with the earths age.

Then explain:

BTW, Good question. Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

How is it a good question if you don't feel the moon's drift is relevant at all to the Earth's age? ETA: If you agree with us that the drift is not relevant to the Earth's age, then why would you describe it as 'weasling' out of it when you share that same view?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 01:15 AM
Then explain:

How is it a good question if you don't feel the moon's drift is relevant at all to the Earth's age?

Athon

Every question is a good question in my opinion. The question was an attempt to learn more about how our solar system works and how one shouldn't date the earth.

Zep
15th June 2007, 01:17 AM
...and how one shouldn't date the earth.So how should one date the Earth, d'you think, Justin?

15th June 2007, 01:18 AM
With wine and flowers, of course. A nice dinner can't hurt.

athon
15th June 2007, 01:19 AM
Every question is a good question in my opinion. The question was an attempt to learn more about how our solar system works and how one shouldn't date the earth.

You jumped in while I was editing, so I'll repeat the second bit; why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

You come across more and more cowardly, Dustin. It fools nobody. Pathetic.

Athon

PixyMisa
15th June 2007, 01:19 AM
Every question is a good question in my opinion. The question was an attempt to learn more about how our solar system works and how one shouldn't date the earth.
And I expect you will also say that you hold weasels in the highest respect. Yes?

athon
15th June 2007, 01:21 AM
And I expect you will also say that you hold weasels in the highest respect. Yes?

Wait for him to pull out an online dictionary which demonstrates that weasels are cute animals known for their cunning...or something equally sad.

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 01:25 AM
You come across more and more cowardly, Dustin. It fools nobody. Pathetic.

Athon

How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

Please refrain from any implication of violence towards other forum members, else you find yourself no longer allowed to post here.

Zep
15th June 2007, 01:29 AM
How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.From you, perchance? :rolleyes:

athon
15th June 2007, 01:30 AM
How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

Alleging violence against me because you've been called out as a coward doesn't answer the question, Dustin, and only further demonstrates the reality that you're now backpeddling and have no answer.

So, again, why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 01:40 AM
Alleging violence against me because you've been called out as a coward doesn't answer the question, Dustin, and only further demonstrates the reality that you're now backpeddling and have no answer.

I would never hit anyone simply because of something they said. I'm not a thug. However there are a lot of people who would. I just find it funny how brash and rude you are to people simply because you disagree with them and note that it's highly unlikely you would act the same in person.

athon
15th June 2007, 01:42 AM
I would never hit anyone simply because of something they said. I'm not a thug. However there are a lot of people who would. I just find it funny how brash and rude you are to people simply because you disagree with them and note that it's highly unlikely you would act the same in person.

Third attempt: So, again, why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

The fact you keep cutting that out says more than any response, I guess. But the more I point that out the more cowardly you demonstrate yourself as being.

Athon

Zep
15th June 2007, 01:53 AM
I would never hit anyone simply because of something they said. I'm not a thug. However there are a lot of people who would. I just find it funny how brash and rude you are to people simply because you disagree with them and note that it's highly unlikely you would act the same in person.So you would wish physical violence on people, even though you may not like to do it yourself.

Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

SezMe
15th June 2007, 01:55 AM
Third+1 attempt: Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

TIA, Dustin.

Dark Jaguar
15th June 2007, 01:55 AM
I think it would be pretty easy to figure out that the further out the moon gets, the more easily and thus the quicker it moves away from that point. That's just a rough bit of logic of course but my point is that even a cursory glance would tell you that concluding a consistant dropoff rate for ANY object who's orbit is degrading away from us is just nuts.

Let's reverse it and see how nuts it is. Imagine something is getting 3 inches CLOSER to us every year. Am I to assume it'll stay the same rate and we'll be watching it, about a foot above our heads, STILL descending at 3 inches a year, or MAYBE since it's closer it'll actually descend at a faster and faster rate, possibly even smashing into the planet at a speed our eyes can't track?

I'm just saying you need to think just a bit further than the point where you think you have something that kinda works against this or that theory. Try to tear APART your own argument, and maybe you'll eliminate the nonsense before we get a chance. If you can't, then maybe you are onto something.

athon
15th June 2007, 01:58 AM
So you would wish physical violence on people, even though you may not like to do it yourself.

Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Dustin doesn't believe in the OT, since Jesus poo-pood it. So he doesn't think the old laws are valid any more.

And since Jesus was all for being violent and stuff... oh... wait... turn the other what? He said that? Really?

Athon

athon
15th June 2007, 02:00 AM
Oh, just in case Dustin thinks we've forgotten:

Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 02:01 AM
So you would wish physical violence on people, even though you may not like to do it yourself.

Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Where did I say I would wish it upon Athon? I'm simply saying if someone is as rude as he is to everyone he disagrees with on this forum to people in person then he would have a pretty tough time getting through the day without a busted nose or jaw.

athon
15th June 2007, 02:05 AM
'Rude' obviously = asking questions which are too hard

Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 02:17 AM
'Rude' obviously = asking questions which are too hard

Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

Athon

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Mashuna
15th June 2007, 02:24 AM
Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

As opposed to the preferred method of claiming that you've already answered a question when in fact you've just avoided it?

Zep
15th June 2007, 02:28 AM
Where did I say I would wish it upon Athon? I'm simply saying if someone is as rude as he is to everyone he disagrees with on this forum to people in person then he would have a pretty tough time getting through the day without a busted nose or jaw.I've met Athon more than once personally. And he seemed to be hale and hearty, and unbusted of nose and jaw, in the main. And in his more recent contacts, he didn't report any of same. I would suspect he would have noticed should it ever have happened... But no - I understand he has other, more pressing, issues, but not actual repeatedly busted mandible and nasal regions.

However your remarks did indeed indicate to many of us that you would like to be doing the inflicting yourself, i.e. a direct threat. Or, at a minimum, be glad if they should happen at your behest, i.e. an indirect threat. While you may have meant it as a wish-list, that's how it comes across. Maybe you are right - maybe writing does need tones... Yours is not pleasant, from this side.

Thin ice, fella.

Zep
15th June 2007, 02:29 AM
Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.It's called "Not re-inventing the wheel for the millionth time".

Darat
15th June 2007, 02:35 AM
I've decided not to move the posts so far that have been Dustin's trolling and the responses to that to AAH (even though they should be since they are off topic). However from now on please stick to discussing the OP since that is a question quite appropriate for the "Science..." section of the Forum, otherwise I will start moving the inappropriate stuff to AAH.

Zep
15th June 2007, 02:38 AM
PS. Justin, no, I did not report anything to the Mods.

Curnir
15th June 2007, 02:52 AM
How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

wow

SomeGuy
15th June 2007, 02:56 AM
Regardless of everything else:

1 mile = 63,360 inches

3 inches * 450,000,000 years = 1,350,000,000 inches

1,350,000,000 / 63,3600 = 213,068.18 miles.

Well within the 240,000 miles.

QED.

However there are things more seriously wrong with JF basic numbers, the moon moves away 3.8 cm per year this is: 3,8 * 0.3937 = 1,5 inches.

This is only half what you claimed the speed was... this naturally results in only 106,500 miles per 4,5 billion years.

Any other questions Jesus Freak?

Fontwell
15th June 2007, 02:58 AM
At the risk of spoiling all the fun, it is most likely that the moon was created over a certain period in time at a certain distance from the earth (see below). Any regression to times before that is meaningless.

From curious.astro.cornell.edu

"The Moon is thought to have formed when an object roughly the size of Mars hit the Earth. The impact was so violent that it threw large amounts of the Earth's mantle into orbit. This material evenually coalesced and formed the Moon.

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. (The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.)

... The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time...The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.

MRC_Hans
15th June 2007, 02:58 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?You are assuming that the effect is linear. It is not.

Hans

UnrepentantSinner
15th June 2007, 03:02 AM
One of my favorite problematic linear pro/regressions is the claim that at population growth X annually, starting with 8 people in 2000 B.C. you wind up with 6 billion today. Wow! Except that looking at the math you wind up with a few hundred world-wide during the time the pyramids were being built and a few tens of thousands at a time when Rome's population alone was known to be over 100,000 (or was it a million, I forget).

Big Al
15th June 2007, 04:13 AM
Good point, Sinner. Population growth is exponential, as are many natural functions. However, there are damping functions such as overcrowding, disease, droughts, overfarming famines, etc. that can increase at varying rates more or less proportional to population density. It's not a smiple, linear equation, and neither are many natural phenomena, including the moon's distance from the earth.

Weasels don't enter into the maths as far as I know.

Megalodon
15th June 2007, 04:31 AM
Where did I say I would wish it upon Athon? I'm simply saying if someone is as rude as he is to everyone he disagrees with on this forum to people in person then he would have a pretty tough time getting through the day without a busted nose or jaw.

Considering that you're the one who thinks that the main muscle driving a punch is the pectoral, the only way you could contribute to a busted jaw is by making people laugh too hard.

BTW, quit the act... American you are not...

15th June 2007, 07:47 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.? Summary for jesus_freak.

* Your maths is wrong. And this should have been obvious to you: if the moon had moved over a billion miles in only a few billion years, then it would have to be moving hundreds of yards per year, not 3 inches.

* Your physics is wrong. You can't just assume that the process is linear. It isn't.

* Your facts are wrong. The moon is not receding at three inches a year. It's receding by about 1˝ inches a year.

* Young Earth Creationism is wrong. Face it.

TriangleMan
15th June 2007, 07:56 AM

* Your source is wrong. the people who provided you with this ridiculous analysis of the moon's recession are either:
a) deliberately deceiving and lying to you; or
b) incapable of doing basic math
so why accept any of their information?

Darat
15th June 2007, 07:59 AM

* Your source is wrong. the people who provided you with this ridiculous analysis of the moon's recession are either:
a) deliberately deceiving and lying to you; or
b) incapable of doing basic math
so why accept any of their information?

'cos it confirms what they want to believe.

Do I get a gold star?

ponderingturtle
15th June 2007, 08:23 AM
Summary for jesus_freak.

* Your maths is wrong. And this should have been obvious to you: if the moon had moved over a billion miles in only a few billion years, then it would have to be moving hundreds of yards per year, not 3 inches.

I think he is just refusing to recognize that there is a difference between a foot and a mile.

sackett
15th June 2007, 08:34 AM
Once again, Creeping Jesus posts and then "Dustin" takes over. It's too soon to say that there's a pattern here, but it makes me wonder.

Hey, it's Friday. Somebody tell me to relax.

Molinaro
15th June 2007, 08:37 AM
Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

*Changes his mind about troll feeding*

Baron Samedi
15th June 2007, 08:38 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

3 inches x 4.5 billion years = 1.125 billion miles?

I guess the saying is true. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

Foster Zygote
15th June 2007, 08:40 AM
Or what peer review means?

Or what mathematics is?

Hagrok
15th June 2007, 08:43 AM
Once again, Creeping Jesus posts and then "Dustin" takes over. It's too soon to say that there's a pattern here, but it makes me wonder.

Hey, it's Friday. Somebody tell me to relax.
Relax! It's Friday!

Foster Zygote
15th June 2007, 08:50 AM
Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Ironic.

kellyb
15th June 2007, 09:00 AM
Any other questions for the Old Earthists, JF?

I would ask if we could ask the Young Earthists a question at this point, but I know there's no point, because you guys can cheat. I'd ask "So what's up with how the light we see in the night sky from stars has to have been traveling for millions or billions of years?"
But you'll (I'm assuming...correct me if I'm wrong) just say something about how god created the universe as though it was really old like that.
Now, if our answer to your moon/distance question had been "Perhaps there is a giant pink unicorn behind the moon who leaned against it for several hundred million years, and slowed down the movement of the moon away from the Earth?"

ETA:
I do commend you for asking your question, though. Asking questions is never a bad thing, as long as you are willing to seriously consider the given answers. :)

wollery
15th June 2007, 10:16 AM
We should start a new dictionary, the Shorter Kesselberg Dictionary. We have a couple of new definitions to begin with.

BTW, Good question. Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it. (Bolding mine)
Good question, noun - a ridiculous question based on an obviously flawed analysis of incorrect data which would never have been asked if the questioner had taken any more than a nanosecond to actually think seriously about it or do some research of their own.

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.Weasel out, verb - to conduct sensible research, find authoritative, intelligent, well reasoned academic resources and link to them in support of one's response.

Hellbound
15th June 2007, 10:37 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

No. You are wrong.

Thanks for playing.

rymdman
15th June 2007, 10:55 AM
You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

If I may recommend a very enjoyable altough thin (equals enjoyable) anthology wich examines the "tone" in philosophy, and in philosophers texts. Here's a short review of some of the content:

This work contains the first English translations--very readable ones, too--of two later Kant essays, "On a Newly Raised Superior Tone in Philosophy" and "Announcement of a Near Conclusion for a Treaty of Eternal Peace in Philosophy." In his lengthy introduction, Fenves examines the concept of tone in philosophy and analyzes relations between some of Kant's writing and that of Derrida. The book concludes with Derrida's "On a Newly Arisen Apocalyptic Tone in Philosophy" (translated by John Leavey Jr.), in which he examines tone in Kant's writings as a means of revealing unspoken elements of discourse. A challenging book; recommended for graduate students and scholars in the field.

http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Tone-Philosophy-Immanuel-Transformative/dp/0801861012

Wowbagger
15th June 2007, 11:16 AM
In a scientific debate, one's arguments must be judged by the quality of evidence presented.
Judge not the source, but the carefulness of the measurements, and the repeatability of the testing.

That is all I wish to add.

Tony
15th June 2007, 01:17 PM
How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

I've noticed that a lot of christians turn to violence when they can't defend their views.

Hellbound
15th June 2007, 01:23 PM
I've noticed that a lot of christians turn to violence when they can't defend their views.

Not to mention that there seems a direct correlation between their fanatacism and how big a smile they get when they tell you you'll be burning in HELLFIREfor all eternity.

aggle-rithm
15th June 2007, 01:30 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

You may use the same response for any question of this nature: "Unwarranted extrapolation. Next question."

No need to thank me, just trying to save everybody some time.

I less than three logic
15th June 2007, 01:36 PM
You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...
Tone (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tone) - 6 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing <seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone>

Just felt like pointing out the obvious. :)

andyandy
15th June 2007, 04:11 PM
Tone (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tone) - 6 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing <seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone>

Just felt like pointing out the obvious. :)

ah! You've found Dustin's Kryptonite - refutation by dictionary :)

15th June 2007, 04:39 PM
I'm surprised nobody pointed out the relevant passage from Mark Twain:
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
- Life on the Mississippi

-Fran-
15th June 2007, 04:43 PM
It's reputable. It's peer reviewed as well and publishes numerous world renowned scientists including many noble laureates.

Nobel! Alfred Nobel!

Cainkane1
15th June 2007, 04:46 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?
I wonder if an informed atheist could ask Creationists a question they had difficulty answering? Creationists do have the advantage of the term goddidit that atheists don't have. Scientists work with facts not an emotional need to prove everything they say is right. Science isn't confined to a static book like the bible. Scientific knowledge changes as facts arrive and are tested to be true or false. Could the bible stand up to the same type of questions that you Creationists are tossing into the lap of science? All living things evolved and that can be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt as you will soon find out if you haven't already and the universe including the earth is billions of years old. Sorry Creationists. We have facts on our side and you don't. I personally am not a scientist so I can't answer your questions readily but there are those in here who can. You might as well wake up but you won't. I mean wouldn't that piss off the big hairy thunderer in the sky?

thaiboxerken
15th June 2007, 04:59 PM
I don't believe the earth is very old, I know it for a fact.

UnrepentantSinner
15th June 2007, 05:12 PM
I wonder if an informed atheist could ask Creationists a question they had difficulty answering? Creationists do have the advantage of the term goddidit that atheists don't have.

Sorry to snip, but I just wanted to address this misconception. Not all people opposed to Creationism are atheists. There are loads of religious people of all stripes who accept standard biology, geology, astrophysics, etc. A lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation. They can also be some of the most vociferous critics of Creationism on the Internet.

Foster Zygote
15th June 2007, 05:49 PM
Sorry to snip, but I just wanted to address this misconception. Not all people opposed to Creationism are atheists. There are loads of religious people of all stripes who accept standard biology, geology, astrophysics, etc. A lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation. They can also be some of the most vociferous critics of Creationism on the Internet.

I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

Achán hiNidráne
15th June 2007, 07:44 PM
lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation.

How is God, a being who is supposed to be supernatural, creating "the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation" NOT an example of "supernatural intervention?"

Morrigan
15th June 2007, 07:51 PM
So, when are we taking bets on whether jesus_freak will come back to this thread and acknowledge that he was wrong, or not...?

Dustin Kesselberg
15th June 2007, 08:00 PM
I've noticed that a lot of christians turn to violence when they can't defend their views.

Good grief...:rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2692195&postcount=52

I've made it clear that I was not referring to myself already. I don't resort to violence simply because someone is being rude or insulting. I just try to get away from them as quick as I can before it does turn violent due to them initiating violent physical contact. As I've said already, I doubt Athon would repeatedly call me a "coward" to my face in person and EVEN IF he did I definitively would not respond to him in any way. I would simply try my best to cut whatever conversation we were having short and get away from him because he would be clearly unstable.

P.S. In the United States I would be justified in punching him under the 'fighting words' doctrine if he were in my face repeatedly calling me 'cowardly and pathetic'.

mQKxAqpjroo

Even though justified I STILL wouldn't do it mind you. I'm not a violent person.

Zep
15th June 2007, 08:02 PM
How is God, a being who is supposed to be supernatural, creating "the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation" NOT an example of "supernatural intervention?"It is the "Non-interventionist God" model. Apparently, God somehow lit the blue touch-paper and stood well clear, and bang!, the universe and all its workings were created. Since then, he has stood by and just let it happen according to his laws, not interfering in any way at all.

Except for that Noah thing, of course.

Oh, and the walls of Jericho.

And Jebus.

Saul/Paul, however, was not part of the plan. But the voting selection for the contents of the Bible was.

Oh yeah! I forgot all the saintly miracles. And Lourdes. And Jebus' face on burnt toast and train underpasses, and all that stuff.

UnrepentantSinner
15th June 2007, 08:07 PM
How is God, a being who is supposed to be supernatural, creating "the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation" NOT an example of "supernatural intervention?"

Do you not know what "supernatural intervention" means?

trvlr2
15th June 2007, 08:13 PM
Third+1 attempt: Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

TIA, Dustin.

I have pondered the question myself. I am at a loss, unless Dustbin is a weasel, and shares a weasel's worldview?

15th June 2007, 08:24 PM
2) Young earth creationists whose arguments go something like this: "D00d!11!!11eleventyone!! The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3 centimeters per year which, if I do my math right, means that in an old universe the moon should have receded by eleventy billion miles! Obviously, those fools with their 'science' and 'book-learning' don't know anything!"
:)

mijopaalmc
15th June 2007, 09:10 PM
So how should one date the Earth, d'you think, Justin?With wine and flowers, of course. A nice dinner can't hurt.

A fast K-Ar doesn't hurt either.

15th June 2007, 10:01 PM
A fast K-Ar doesn't hurt either. * groans *

Slimething
15th June 2007, 10:46 PM
P.S. In the United States I would be justified in punching him under the 'fighting words' doctrine if he were in my face repeatedly calling me 'cowardly and pathetic'.

Where do I start?

I've read your and Athon's exchanges and he was calling you a coward insofar as you are unwilling to answer direct, en pointe questions regarding your earlier posts. Yes, I agree fully with him. In this and other threads, you like to drop verbal bombs and refuse to own up to them or be responsible for them. In my book, that is intellectual cowardice so I agree with Athon. And, your style is pathetic. Your posts are getting fewer and farther in between as the idiocy of the OP is further exposed.

Now, let's get to your legal scholarship, shall we? You completely misunderstand the Fighting Words Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words)but that does not surprise me. The Doctrine is a common sense limitation of the First Amendment to preserve the peace and the general safety of government officials from individuals setting them up for potential harm through invective. As you are not the Federal Government, it has nothing (squat) to do with you.

If you hit anyone for calling you a name that upsets you, you could be arrested and tried under the criminal code for battery, at the very least. Under the civil code, you could be sued under many different legal theories and my guess is that you would lose a large fraction of whatever property you have.

Practically, though, having taken the measure of both you and Athon by the tone, tenor and content of the posts on this thread, my money would be on Athon. Your best hope would be divine intervention. Best of luck.

So, let's get back to it. What did you mean by "weasel"?

Verde
15th June 2007, 11:22 PM
While this effect is somewhat unnerving, it does pass within an hour or two.

Not yet sure what the cumulative effect might be, though.

The stupid, it hertz.

Back in the 'Good Old Days' we had cps. They didn't Hertz nearly as much.

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 12:44 AM
Simple math here.

3.8 cm/year = 0.038m/year
therefore, over 1 billion years, about 38,000,000 m = 38,000 km
The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km
Roche's limit is 9,500 km, call it an even 10,000 for fudge factor and you have 180,000 km as the most the Moon's orbit can shrink and the Moon still remain a Moon instead of a ring of rubble
I get 4.7 billion years.

Next.

fishbob
16th June 2007, 01:32 AM
I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Brain hertz from esplaining stuff to Dustin?

Brattus
16th June 2007, 01:45 AM
First off sorry for this post. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I had to read the entire first page before I figured out what the point of the OP was.
So there are really people out there that really no joke for real believe the earth is only around 6000 years old?
Wowsers! Learn something new everyday!
What's next? People who still believe the earth is flat.

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 01:50 AM
So there are really people out there that really no joke for real believe the earth is only around 6000 years old?

I'm not sure what's more disconcerting. Reading their posts to open debate forums or when they chat amongst themselves.
http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html

Brattus
16th June 2007, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure what's more disconcerting. Reading their posts to open debate forums or when they chat amongst themselves.
http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html

There must be lots of people that believe that.
As I stated before I am not that sharp and now apparently I live under a rock as well. I have never heard of this before. I thought the approximate age of the earth was established and recorded as fact long ago.

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 02:30 AM
There must be lots of people that believe that.
As I stated before I am not that sharp and now apparently I live under a rock as well. I have never heard of this before. I thought the approximate age of the earth was established and recorded as fact long ago.

Unfortunately I've been delving into the Cvs.E debate for so long I can do a dead on YEC imitation. And yeah, there are a lot of people who believe that stuff, and not all of them are crazy, even if they sometimes sound like it.

The age of the Earth has been pretty much known at around 4.5 billion years since the 1950s with a little bit of tweeking now and then. The mental gymnastics and willful ignorance that YECs have to go through in order to believe the Earth (and Universe as a whole) is 6,000 years old seems madness to rational people.

And they all believe in dinosaurs. They just believe they lived contemporaneously with humans, were described in the book of Job, and died mostly during the flood then went extinct shortly after it. Though some believe they're still around today and others say they lived until the middle ages and were called "dragons."

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 02:40 AM
You have absolutely no idea (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/). <-that's a link to the Flat Earth Society's forum page. No, it's not a joke, unless it is a very elaborate one.

PixyMisa
16th June 2007, 03:19 AM
3.8 cm/year = 0.038m/year
therefore, over 1 billion years, about 38,000,000 m = 38,000 km
The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km
Roche's limit is 9,500 km, call it an even 10,000 for fudge factor and you have 180,000 km as the most the Moon's orbit can shrink and the Moon still remain a Moon instead of a ring of rubble
I get 4.7 billion years.
You skeptics and your so-called "arithmetic"!

Morwen
16th June 2007, 03:29 AM
You have absolutely no idea (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/). <-that's a link to the Flat Earth Society's forum page. No, it's not a joke, unless it is a very elaborate one.
Have you read their FAQ (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0)? :jaw-dropp

Achán hiNidráne
16th June 2007, 03:29 AM
It is the "Non-interventionist God" model. Apparently, God somehow lit the blue touch-paper and stood well clear, and bang!, the universe and all its workings were created. Since then, he has stood by and just let it happen according to his laws, not interfering in any way at all.

And the scientific, peer reviewed and tested evidence for a "non-interventionist God" (or a interventionist one for that matter) is...?

Achán hiNidráne
16th June 2007, 03:37 AM
Do you not know what "supernatural intervention" means?

Do you know what "God" means. God is a supernatural being, therefore ANYTHING said being does is "supernatural intervention."

Evolution is about natural selection, not some deity guiding life to some inevitable conclusion. The so-called "theological evolutionists" are not much different (and certainly no better) than the Creationists no matter how much the latter tries to ape rationality.

fls
16th June 2007, 03:39 AM
I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

ETA:

From Gould (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html):

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Linda

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 03:58 AM
Do you know what "God" means. God is a supernatural being, therefore ANYTHING said being does is "supernatural intervention."

Evolution is about natural selection, not some deity guiding life to some inevitable conclusion. The so-called "theological evolutionists" are not much different (and certainly no better) than the Creationists no matter how much the latter tries to ape rationality.

You really need to reread Zep's post above before lecturing me on this because it's you who is having the comprehension difficulties, not me. Again, pay attention to the word "intervention" your myopia is hindering you.

And save your Christaphobia for the other God-Haters who think like you do. You're just wasting calories pressing the keys to vent your anger at your parents with me.

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 04:00 AM
<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

[devilsadvocate]I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense.[/devilsadvocae]

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 04:02 AM
<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense.

fls
16th June 2007, 04:09 AM
I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense.

I agree. That's why I called it a nitpick.

Linda

calebprime
16th June 2007, 04:11 AM
A fast K-Ar doesn't hurt either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating

Cainkane1
16th June 2007, 05:07 AM
This website will answer every question that you can ask unless you get even more ridiculous than you already have. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

sphenisc
16th June 2007, 06:47 AM
Simple math here.

3.8 cm/year = 0.038m/year
therefore, over 1 billion years, about 38,000,000 m = 38,000 km
The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km
Roche's limit is 9,500 km, call it an even 10,000 for fudge factor and you have 180,000 km as the most the Moon's orbit can shrink and the Moon still remain a Moon instead of a ring of rubble
I get 4.7 billion years.

Next.

You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.

UnrepentantSinner
16th June 2007, 07:45 AM
I agree. That's why I called it a nitpick.

I know and I wish I'd included a smilie with that response to you. :)

Very informative btw. I've been summarizing the differences for years thusly:

- A fact is an observation that we make.
- A theory is an explanation for why we make that observation.
- A law described mathematically how that observation occurs.

They're not perfect, but I think for the layman and the scientist they're sufficient.

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 11:50 AM
Have you read their FAQ (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0)? :jaw-droppNo, I'm saving it for a really bad day when I need a good laugh.

jimbob
16th June 2007, 12:01 PM
First off sorry for this post. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Itake this admission as evidence, therefore you probably aren't not the sharpest tool in the box. I have several candidates for the bluntest, though; may I use evidence now?

I had to read the entire first page before I figured out what the point of the OP was.
So there are really people out there that really no joke for real believe the earth is only around 6000 years old?
Wowsers! Learn something new everyday!
What's next? People who still believe the earth is flat.

Some even think it is concave and hollow (tired wiki and it was down)...

Jim

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 12:09 PM
You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors? Bring it- this I gotta see.

Worth mentioning, I suppose, that whatever you come up with has to account for the fact that paleogeological analysis of tidal rhythmites shows that the rate of recession has sped up (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W). Seems to me that kinda throws a monkey-wrench into any argument that it's been less than the time since the formation of the Moon- if it's been slowing, then the maximum time will be even longer.

Good luck.

Foster Zygote
16th June 2007, 12:10 PM
I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense.

Thanks Satan! Yes, that is what I meant.

articulett
16th June 2007, 12:49 PM
I just find it funny how brash and rude you are to people simply because you disagree with them and note that it's highly unlikely you would act the same in person.

I think it's funny that woos traipse over to a skeptics forum where they put their ignorance on display to the everlasting amusement of those who are much brighter than them. I think it's hysterical that they are sure they have something to teach those skeptics while being absolutely blind to the miasma of ignorance emanating from their every posting. I so enjoy reading the way the skeptics play with the woos like a cat with a mouse. I roll my eyes with amazement the way claim after claim is made by the woo with nary a smidgen of supporting evidence. And I especially like the irony of how they pout, pout, pout, when somebody says something that hurts their feelings while being utterly blind to the obnoxious insults they add to most every post while pretending to be humble and pious and holier than thou.

You called Athon rude, while being utterly blind to your own rudeness from the very first post. This is a skeptics forum, remember? No one invited your Jesus loving ass here. We don't hold the high opinion of you and your woo that you do. We are generally smart people who like evidence before believing things, and we hate crap science. I think Athon was being generous in trying to edify the likes of you... I personally prefer to use woo for my own amusement. Woo ignorance is particularly hard to eradicate because they believe that faith is a good way to know something--even a good way to live happily ever after. It is impossible to have a rational discussion who believe that faith and feelings are a good way to know facts.

In science we use facts to understand more about reality.
In woo land, you have a truth you want, and you fit the facts, feelings, and so forth into some sort of mental bundle that supports that truth and then you never let a dash of logic penetrate. You spend your time trying to foist your "truth" off on others, because somehow that makes it more true to you.

But the truth just keeps being the same truth whether you believe in it or not.
The facts are the facts no matter how how much you have "faith" in some other notion.

articulett
16th June 2007, 12:54 PM
I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

Francis Collins, for one.

Stupendous Man
16th June 2007, 01:24 PM
Given how oft this question has been asked on EVERY CvE discussion board on the internet, I find it surprising that Jesus Freak would have even asked it in the first place. How little time would it have taken to find the answer? Just because the moon recedes at a particular rate now doesn't mean that it always has, and always will. There. That's the simple answer.
What question will be next? Why isn't the moon dust 50 feet deep? These are all questions that plague discussion boards of this type.
And for what, really? Has any YEC ever accepted the explanations? Not that I have ever seen.

I also find it amusing that Dustin Kesselberg is right there again with the first reply, as if J.F has his own cheerleader.

No Dustin, It is not a good question. Hasn't been for years now. Not every question is a good question as you said earlier. When a question has been answered so thoroughly as this one, asking it again is ridiculous. That makes it a bad question.

Jesus Freak, I don't know how long you have been mired in the clay of creationist ignorance, but so far every question I have seen from you has an answer readily available with a little searching, and it will be the very same answer you receive here.

Thabiguy
16th June 2007, 01:32 PM
The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km.

*ahem*

... But even though the simple calculation doesn't give the right figure, it suffices to show that the original argument against old Earth is baseless.

sphenisc
16th June 2007, 01:46 PM
You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors? Bring it- this I gotta see.

Worth mentioning, I suppose, that whatever you come up with has to account for the fact that paleogeological analysis of tidal rhythmites shows that the rate of recession has sped up (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W). Seems to me that kinda throws a monkey-wrench into any argument that it's been less than the time since the formation of the Moon- if it's been slowing, then the maximum time will be even longer.

Good luck.

Thanks, I'll do my best.

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.

However it is sufficent to recognise that if a rate has "sped up" (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W)
then it is not constant - if it is not constant then a linear model is inappropriate - which is what I DID say.

Terry
16th June 2007, 01:51 PM
Thanks, I'll do my best.

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.

However it is sufficent to recognise that if a rate has "sped up" (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W)
then it is not constant - if it is not constant then a linear model is inappropriate - which is what I DID say.

If the rate of recession has sped up, then the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago. Even with this overestimate it is still outside the Roche limit. So this does show that the moon's behavior is consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

sphenisc
16th June 2007, 02:16 PM
If the rate of recession has sped up, then the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago. Even with this overestimate it is still outside the Roche limit. So this does show that the moon's behavior is consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

Unfortunately, if the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago then it wasn't at the Roche limit at that time. If the moon wasn't there at that time then it wasn't formed then, as most model seem to have that as its location of formation

If it was outside the Roche limit at hat time then this puts it at the Roche Limit (and its formation) somewhat earlier. If the moon was formed earlier than 4.5By by a collision with the earth then the earth would have had to exist prior to 4.5By. So, no it isn't consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

Dustin Kesselberg
16th June 2007, 02:42 PM
Where do I start?

I've read your and Athon's exchanges and he was calling you a coward insofar as you are unwilling to answer direct, en pointe questions regarding your earlier posts. Yes, I agree fully with him. In this and other threads, you like to drop verbal bombs and refuse to own up to them or be responsible for them. In my book, that is intellectual cowardice so I agree with Athon. And, your style is pathetic. Your posts are getting fewer and farther in between as the idiocy of the OP is further exposed.

Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

Now, let's get to your legal scholarship, shall we? You completely misunderstand the Fighting Words Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words)but that does not surprise me. The Doctrine is a common sense limitation of the First Amendment to preserve the peace and the general safety of government officials from individuals setting them up for potential harm through invective. As you are not the Federal Government, it has nothing (squat) to do with you.

If you hit anyone for calling you a name that upsets you, you could be arrested and tried under the criminal code for battery, at the very least. Under the civil code, you could be sued under many different legal theories and my guess is that you would lose a large fraction of whatever property you have.

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

thaiboxerken
16th June 2007, 03:00 PM
Sophist : a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.

Terry
16th June 2007, 03:03 PM
Unfortunately, if the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago then it wasn't at the Roche limit at that time. If the moon wasn't there at that time then it wasn't formed then, as most model seem to have that as its location of formation

If it was outside the Roche limit at hat time then this puts it at the Roche Limit (and its formation) somewhat earlier. If the moon was formed earlier than 4.5By by a collision with the earth then the earth would have had to exist prior to 4.5By. So, no it isn't consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

What's the necessity for it to form at the Roche limit? It can't form inside that, but who says it can't form outside?

Hawk one
16th June 2007, 03:14 PM
In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

The difference of course being that everyone sane knew that Buzz Aldrin didn't lie about being on the moon.

On the other hand, calling a person that has been shown to tell lies for a liar and then getting punched for saying that fact, then this will be much more likely (though not guaranteed, as it depends on how much resources there are to spend on such a case) to land the punching liar a charge. Quite a different situation indeed.

Then again, it's certainly understandable why you turned religious. After all, now you can do your "I'm sooo persecuted" gig with a whole new range of "reasons" why you're being persecuted, none of them including any honesty, such as you cowardly refusing to answer straight questions in this thread.

Slimething
16th June 2007, 03:19 PM
Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

You like ignoring, don't you? Gotten pretty good at it, IMHO. DK, I didn't say you had written the OP but your first post sure did signal that you fully agreed with it.

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

So? What does that have to do with the Fighting Words Doctrine? Nothing. Do a better job of research before you post. It's too damned easy to anihilate your points.

So, DK, AGAIN, what did you mean by "weasel"?

Achán hiNidráne
16th June 2007, 03:21 PM
You really need to reread Zep's post above before lecturing me on this because it's you who is having the comprehension difficulties, not me. Again, pay attention to the word "intervention" your myopia is hindering you.

I understood what you were talking about perfectly, US. I just don't agree with it.

And save your Christaphobia for the other God-Haters who think like you do. You're just wasting calories pressing the keys to vent your anger at your parents with me.

Fine, I'm a "Christophobe." Any rational person would be afraid the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Witch Hunts, and sitting U.S. presidents who think the Rapture is 'a comin' AND has access to nuclear missile launch codes. Why aren't you?

And of course I'm a "God-Hater." Only a psychotic would "love," much less worship, the capricious, murderous, malign deity Christians claim rules and judges all. Any moral, decent, person would "hate god."

Dustin Kesselberg
16th June 2007, 03:21 PM
The difference of course being that everyone sane knew that Buzz Aldrin didn't lie about being on the moon.

On the other hand, calling a person that has been shown to tell lies for a liar and then getting punched for saying that fact, then this will be much more likely (though not guaranteed, as it depends on how much resources there are to spend on such a case) to land the punching liar a charge. Quite a different situation indeed.

You're joking right?

Dustin Kesselberg
16th June 2007, 03:23 PM
You like ignoring, don't you? Gotten pretty good at it, IMHO. DK, I didn't say you had written the OP but your first post sure did signal that you fully agreed with it.

So? What does that have to do with the Fighting Words Doctrine? Nothing. Do a better job of research before you post. It's too damned easy to anihilate your points.

So, DK, AGAIN, what did you mean by "weasel"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 03:31 PM
Thanks, I'll do my best.

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.OK, then on what grounds do you assert it changed? It would seem that you have eliminated yourself as a source of sound arguments on the matter, since you yourself say you do not have the mathematical acumen to provide them.

However it is sufficent to recognise that if a rate has "sped up" (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W)
then it is not constant - if it is not constant then a linear model is inappropriate - which is what I DID say.No, it is not- it is necessary to characterize the appropriate non-linear model. If you wish to support the claim that is made by the OP, or even to show that my claim does not invalidate it, then you must show a decreasing rate, not an increasing rate; this you have failed to do, in the face of my evidence that the rate is in fact increasing.

My results therefore are a correct refutation of the assertion in the IP; whether you approve of the methodology or not is immaterial if you cannot show it is wrong.

Hawk one
16th June 2007, 03:42 PM
You're joking right?

I could ask the same of you, since you seem completely unable to reckognise that different situations are in fact different situations. Confronting a person who tells lies and avoids straight questions with his lies and evading should definitely not warrant a punch in the face.

So, trying to indirectly associate yourself with Buzz Aldrin is just another pathetic move of yours, and part of your "I'm sooo persecuted" complex you keep running.

athon
16th June 2007, 04:04 PM
Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

Paying attention would be a good idea, Dustin. Try it. He didn't say that you wrote the OP. Wait, I'll find you a dictionary definition for the word 'read'...

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

You're equating yourself with Buzz Aldrin now? Does your arrogance hold no bounds at all? Seriously?

Buzz Aldrin probably shouldn't have hit the guy. We can understand it, and probably sympathise, but using violence in that situation was morally wrong. He didn't feel physically threatened at all, but was outraged at yet again being call a liar about something so ridiculous. Calling you arrogant and dishonest on a message board where your posts historically stand for comparison against my accusations is as different as it gets.

Your Christian code says to love thy enemy, to turn the other cheek. How readily you ignore that when it doesn't suit you. Hence I add 'hypocrit' to the list.

Athon

thaiboxerken
16th June 2007, 04:09 PM
I wonder, if one feeds a troll, does it just keep getting bigger and bigger?

Darat
16th June 2007, 04:16 PM
No it just becomes a Christian.

korenyx
16th June 2007, 04:20 PM
I just got back from AZ where the YE's are still trying to use the Grand Canyon as proof of Noah's flood.

Kore

Schneibster
16th June 2007, 04:24 PM
In another thread on the SMM&T forum, Dustin has asserted that it's OK to lie about global warming to get people to do something about it.

While I support the assertions that global warming is happening, that it is anthropogenic, and that we should do something about it, I also support the contention that people should be honestly presented with the evidence and permitted to come to their own conclusions, and act on them. The point here is honest evidence. My greatest quarrel with global warming denialists is precisely that their evidence is dishonest; I have therefore a positive interest in pointing out dishonesty when practiced by those who supposedly agree with me, since this permits me to keep the high moral ground.

I am sure that Dustin never expected this thread to appear on SMM&T where those who witnessed his earlier dishonesty would have the opportunity to point it out. The threads in question are available to a simple search on SMM&T. Conclusions are left to the searcher (and reader).

Slimething
16th June 2007, 05:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel

:confused: WTF is the link supposed to show in support for your incorrect views of either astronomy or Constitutional Law?

Well, two can play at this game. Here's one for you!
http://tinyurl.com/pk5q

Well, enough pleasantries. What did you you mean by "weasel"?

The Grave
16th June 2007, 07:39 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

Taken from that interesting link: The evidence of scientific measuring by a competent astrophysicist...

"The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year."

3 inches is actually 7.62 cm which of course is NOT 3.8 cm [the correct value]... oh, in fact it is double isn't it?

Yet another faither's error. You know I'm beginning to loose faith!

4.5*10^9 * 0.038 m => 171,000 km NOT 1.125 billion miles {= 1.8 billion km...ie 1,800,000,000} or in other words WRONG by a factor of 10,552 times TOO big!

Maths not your strong point and neither is astronomy...stick to faith!

Griff...:)

PixyMisa
16th June 2007, 07:49 PM
Buzz Aldrin probably shouldn't have hit the guy. We can understand it, and probably sympathise, but using violence in that situation was morally wrong.
You know, I disagree here. In the narrow sense, Aldrin's response was understandable and defensible. And I think that in a broader sense, Aldrin did the right thing. Society needed Sibrel to get punched in the face.

The Grave
16th June 2007, 07:49 PM
Sorry, sorry...did I say the maths was wrong. Well that's not all is it...?

Cos who said the moon was formed 4.5 billion yrs ago [at the same time as the Earth] anyway?:confused:

There are many 'theories' as to the formation of moons; maybe the moving away tells us which one is correct!

What 'IT' doesn't tell us in IT's book is anything about astronomy anyway!

Ha!:p

So enlighten us oh Freaky one... why does IT want the Moon to move away from us....

Isn't that going to ruin every solar eclipse from now unto the dusk of time????:eek:

Oh those signs...their there if you can read them....Ha! Not!:rolleyes:

Griff...sweat dreams! Hot or cold; who cares!

The Grave
16th June 2007, 07:54 PM
Oh I get it...longer to pray to IT; that's IT's bloody plan!

"The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now."

But since I won't be praying...Oooh what can I spend those extra 2 milliseconds doing?

Griff...

athon
16th June 2007, 08:24 PM
You know, I disagree here. In the narrow sense, Aldrin's response was understandable and defensible. And I think that in a broader sense, Aldrin did the right thing. Society needed Sibrel to get punched in the face.

Well, there's no universal right and wrong, so it's not really an argument we can have on those grounds. My own personal morality on it dictates to me that punching somebody who is verbally abusing you extends past due recource, although is perfectly understandable (in other words, I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, but I would feel bad if I did).

The best we can agree on is that we can both sympathise with the guy.

Athon

PixyMisa
16th June 2007, 08:30 PM
The best we can agree on is that we can both sympathise with the guy.
We can probably also agree that Bart Sibrel is a weasel. :ferret:

xingyifa
16th June 2007, 08:43 PM
Speaking of weasels, did DK ever answer that question that keeps popping up throughout this thread?

athon
16th June 2007, 08:59 PM
We can probably also agree that Bart Sibrel is a weasel. :ferret:

A Dustinian weasel of the more traditional kind?

Speaking of weasels, did DK ever answer that question that keeps popping up throughout this thread?

Yeah, in his own Dustinian way. He claimed he used the term-

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Dustin either doesn't understand the connotation of his posts, seeing that saying something like 'Good question. Watch them weasel out of this one' carries the subtext of a) agreeing with the insinuation of the claim in the OP, and b) that there is an expectation that a sizeable proportion of those responding will try to get around a rather large logical obstacle through using word play and semantics...

...or he understands this, and since he has now found himself painted into a corner has to explain his post as being less accusational and offensive than it was.

My thought is the latter. He's more cowardly than naive, in this situation. I find it difficult to believe that even wouldn't be fully aware of the subext in his post.

Athon

Slimething
16th June 2007, 08:59 PM
Speaking of weasels, did DK ever answer that question that keeps popping up throughout this thread?

By the time DK evolves the honesty to do that, our days will be 2 msec longer. :D

Mobyseven
16th June 2007, 09:13 PM
Well, there's no universal right and wrong, so it's not really an argument we can have on those grounds. My own personal morality on it dictates to me that punching somebody who is verbally abusing you extends past due recource, although is perfectly understandable (in other words, I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, but I would feel bad if I did).

The best we can agree on is that we can both sympathise with the guy.

Athon

To me what Buzz did was a perfectly reasonable reaction to having someone invade your personal space while screaming the equivalent of, "Your life is a lie! You are a liar!" over and over again.

But again, common ground is found in that we all sympathise with Buzz.

thaiboxerken
16th June 2007, 09:34 PM
That, and Buzz isn't a liar. Dustin really does use cowardly tactics, dishonesty and lies.

Taffer
16th June 2007, 09:59 PM
On September 9, 2002, filmmaker and journalist Bart Sibrel, a proponent that the six Apollo lunar missions were elaborate hoaxes, confronted Aldrin outside a Beverly Hills, California hotel, demanding that Aldrin either swear an oath on the Bible that he had walked on the Moon or admit that it was all a hoax. After Aldrin and an unnamed female relative who was accompanying him tried to leave, Sibrel put the Bible in front of him and called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face. [13] Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor declined to file charges. Sibrel suffered no permanent injury.

Bart Sibrel wrote, produced and directed the 2001 documentary, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon."

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel)

Doesn't even mention "Fighting Words" at all.

Dustin Kesselberg
17th June 2007, 02:20 PM
I could ask the same of you, since you seem completely unable to reckognise that different situations are in fact different situations. Confronting a person who tells lies and avoids straight questions with his lies and evading should definitely not warrant a punch in the face.

So, trying to indirectly associate yourself with Buzz Aldrin is just another pathetic move of yours, and part of your "I'm sooo persecuted" complex you keep running.

Calling someone a "coward" and a "liar" in their face is threatening regardless of the factuality of the assertions themselves. The assertions being made are irrelevant. If someone was in your face shouting "Goo-Goo-Gaa-Gaa" it would still be threatening and warrant self defense.

Dustin Kesselberg
17th June 2007, 02:21 PM
:confused: WTF is the link supposed to show in support for your incorrect views of either astronomy or Constitutional Law?

Well, two can play at this game. Here's one for you!
http://tinyurl.com/pk5q

Well, enough pleasantries. What did you you mean by "weasel"?

Dustin Kesselberg
17th June 2007, 02:23 PM
Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel)

Doesn't even mention "Fighting Words" at all.

It says..

Sibrel put the Bible in front of him and called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words).

17th June 2007, 02:54 PM
So there are really people out there that really no joke for real believe the earth is only around 6000 years old?

The percentage of adult Americans that believe "God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years" has hovered around 45% for well over a decade (see footnote). One has to be careful not to conflate that fugure with young-earth creationists (YEC) because there are some old-earth creationists that believe mankind was created recently (JWs for instance).

__________
The three options presented to people were:
1) humans evolved with no guidance from God,
2) humans evolved with God's guidance, and
3) God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years

Soapy Sam
17th June 2007, 03:09 PM
Gods.
Moorbath and Runcorn. Growth rings in Devonian Corals . Q.J Geol.- about 1970?

Stretching the old brain here.

Angular momentum shoves planets and moons apart. The effects are (let me think...some bugger at Oxford in the 17th century..Newman? Newtown? Something like that... non linear. I seem to recall an inverse square effect...)

Banded ironstones. Stromatolites. Tidal ranges in the late precambrian were not huge. Wherever the hell the Moon was, it wasn't orbiting 300 feet above mean sea level.

Things change over time. This apparently comes as a surprise to some.

I guess tidal locking must be impossible, because god doesn't mention it in Genesis.
Bugger.

Dustin Kesselberg
17th June 2007, 03:24 PM
How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

Please refrain from any implication of violence towards other forum members, else you find yourself no longer allowed to post here.

This is a misunderstanding. I never said I would commit any violence nor that I wished that any violence would befall that poster. I was stating that if they were as rude in person as they are online then they would probably be punched. Not by me, but by people who resort to violence from that sort of thing.

I made it clear that I would never use violence simply due to someones rudeness or insults and that I never wished violence towards that poster.

See these posts for proof.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2692195&postcount=52)

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2692233&postcount=59)

and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2694461&postcount=102)

BTW, If making a causal inference that someone doing something would lead to violence in some situations (situations that don't involve the one making the inference i.e. Me) is against the rules then you should have a lot of warnings to issue in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52005&highlight=Martial)

Beleth
17th June 2007, 04:56 PM
This is a misunderstanding. I never said I would commit any violence nor that I wished that any violence would befall that poster.

Nor did the warning say you did.

I was stating that if they were as rude in person as they are online then they would probably be punched.

So you admit you implied violence, then. Case closed.

skeptifem
17th June 2007, 05:00 PM
im actually with dustin on this one (the violence thing). this really doesnt seem like any rule violation to me. but whatever this is more of a line of discussion for the forum management section.

Alareth
17th June 2007, 05:36 PM
Deleted, I answered my own question.

17th June 2007, 06:13 PM
im actually with dustin on this one (the violence thing). this really doesnt seem like any rule violation to me.

I agree.

Complexity
17th June 2007, 06:16 PM
In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

You aren't Buzz Aldrin.

noblecaboose
17th June 2007, 06:27 PM
You aren't Buzz Aldrin.

I was just about to say that. :)

Slimething
17th June 2007, 08:27 PM

No, sorry, DK, not buying that one. There, you are the one weaseling out of an earlier statement. Note that the definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weasel)of "weasel out" is:
To back out of a situation or commitment in a sneaky or cowardly manner.

There is nothing in the deifinition that implies that using earlier work or someone else's explanation to be a form of "weaseling out".

As a matter of fact, using earlier work is the basis of a true scholarly work and is not viewed as a method of escaping an intelligent question, as you would have it.

Earlier, you and I exchanged views on whether or not lying to people was a justifiable tool to preserve the greater good. I warned you against it as lies are all too detectable, especially from a source who is not equipped with the intellectual tools necessary to make the lies believable. Let's make this episode a first warning of sorts, DK, that you are not a very good liar. IOW, don't trade on it, you lack the charm and intelligence.

Dustin Kesselberg
17th June 2007, 08:31 PM
As a matter of fact, using earlier work is the basis of a true scholarly work and is not viewed as a method of escaping an intelligent question, as you would have it.

But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.

Beleth
17th June 2007, 08:38 PM
But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.

If someone else has answered a question thoroughly, understandably, and in such a manner so that my addition or translation would diminish the answer rather than enhance it, what's so unreasonable about simply linking to that answer? How is it any different than relying on Bible quotations to demonstrate a point?

athon
17th June 2007, 09:08 PM
This is a misunderstanding. I never said I would commit any violence nor that I wished that any violence would befall that poster. I was stating that if they were as rude in person as they are online then they would probably be punched. Not by me, but by people who resort to violence from that sort of thing.

This is an excellent example of your rather cowardly / naive nature, Dustin. And an example of you either not comprehening or intentionally not admitting to the subtext of your posts.

'Others would committ violence unto you for such an action. Not I, but others would' carries a subtext of implying violence against somebody. Absolving yourself of responsibility from the act, but still warning somebody of it in a context such as this, continues to have a subtext of acceptance of the act.

Much like stating 'watch them weasel out of this one' carries the connotation of supporting the statement and claiming others will only be able to subvert rationalisation through some sort of word play, and not directly answer it.

Regardless of whether you truly agree with JF's view or the scientific view, your response conveys smug arrogance which will of course make others think you side with the OP.

When challenged, you retreat from admission of intending the subtext, and claim only implying the literal meaning. If you honestly did not write those things with such implied subtext, you are incredibly naive to the impact such statements have. Effective communication relies on understanding this. How can you not foresee how such statements will be interpreted?

Athon

Taffer
17th June 2007, 10:07 PM
It says..

Sorry, Dustin, but just because Wiki links two words doesn't make it reality. Either show that the "Fighting Words" ammendment was used, or retract your statement.

autumn1971
17th June 2007, 10:19 PM
Glad I read this thread thouroughly; I always thought that "weaseling out" was a bizzare fraternity initiation.
As to the question of Dustin's "tone", text lacks a "tone" only if one is an especially incompetent writer. Dustin has shown a command of the English language that proves his equivocation on the matter of "tone" and "weaseling out" is, itself, an out-weaseling.
Yes, I coined it. It's mine.
But you may use it if you must.

Slimething
18th June 2007, 12:16 AM
But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.

Is what? Weaseling? No. Sorry.

Suppose you wrote that a meter is a meter and I cited Einstein's paper on Special Relativity, would that be "weaseling"? I don't think so.

The phrase "A word to the wise is sufficient" comes to mind. It means that a hint is as good as a full explanation to an intelligent person. However, you seem to be immune to said hints. I'm not fooled and my guess is that not many here are.

DK, take Lincoln's words to heart: You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.

Lying is no way to go through life. You may want to believe that you can control others through manipulation but it isn't so. Much brighter people than you have tried this gambit through the ages only to wind up in prison or worse.

JQH
18th June 2007, 01:00 AM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

You have a very strange calculator. Using your figures, I make it the Moon would have been 213,000 miles closer, i.e. a centre to centre distance of a little under 26,000 miles.

Either that or you think miles and inches are interchangable units.

Schneibster
18th June 2007, 03:06 AM
jf is long gone, I think. Being mathematically challenged on the science forum of the skeptics' web site could be a really disheartening experience, wouldn't you say?

JQH
18th June 2007, 03:31 AM
Doubtless true, Schneibster. What gets me is that he's so eager to show an "inconsistancy" that he doesn't notice an elementary arithmetical error in his own calculation.

sphenisc
18th June 2007, 03:41 AM
OK, then on what grounds do you assert it changed? It would seem that you have eliminated yourself as a source of sound arguments on the matter, since you yourself say you do not have the mathematical acumen to provide them.

No, it is not- it is necessary to characterize the appropriate non-linear model. If you wish to support the claim that is made by the OP, or even to show that my claim does not invalidate it, then you must show a decreasing rate, not an increasing rate; this you have failed to do, in the face of my evidence that the rate is in fact increasing.

My results therefore are a correct refutation of the assertion in the IP; whether you approve of the methodology or not is immaterial if you cannot show it is wrong.

Great post, however as I don't say what you think I said, don't wish what you think I wish, haven't tried to do what you claim I've failed to and you've already shown your wrong in regard to what you claim I cannot show is wrong, you might like to try again.

Good luck!

Schneibster
18th June 2007, 03:48 AM
Great post, however as I don't say what you think I said, don't wish what you think I wish, haven't tried to do what you claim I've failed to and you've already shown your wrong in regard to what you claim I cannot show is wrong, you might like to try again.

Good luck!Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support your claims.

Good luck.

UnrepentantSinner
18th June 2007, 03:59 AM
I'm going to rate Dustin's performance in this thread 4 Hovinds out of 5.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2333&d=1151473682

sphenisc
18th June 2007, 04:16 AM
Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support your claims.

Good luck.

I don't say what you think I said

You think I said

yourself say you do not have the mathematical acumen to provide them

I didn't.

Thus I don't say what you think I said.

QED

ponderingturtle
18th June 2007, 08:22 AM
So, when are we taking bets on whether jesus_freak will come back to this thread and acknowledge that he was wrong, or not...?

And would that count as a miracle?

Foster Zygote
18th June 2007, 08:35 AM
...or he understands this, and since he has now found himself painted into a corner has to explain his post as being less accusational and offensive than it was.
As he did in post 175.

ponderingturtle
18th June 2007, 08:41 AM
<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

ETA:

From Gould (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html):

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Linda

Insisting on proper scientific terminology is a problem and causes people to think "well evolution is a theory and ID is a theory so they are equal" So in common usage, evolution is a fact. Limiting discussion to proper scientific terms is only helpful if both sides of a debate are doing it.

xingyifa
18th June 2007, 11:22 AM
I've noticed that many posters here seem to be surprised that dustin would refer to siting someone else's research or well-thought-out arguments as "weasle"-ing. However, I think this really speaks to a well known phenomena within psychology wherein a person transfers their own traits (especially self loathed ones) onto others. How many times have we seen dustin site an article or term that he doesn't really understand? I can think of several and I'm sure those who frequent the boards more are even more familiar with this trait. Perhaps dustin isn't really as blind to his own ignorance as he lets on; perhaps he just wishes everyone else was in the same boat...

Schneibster
18th June 2007, 11:11 PM
So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors? If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.I understand "no;" "no" means no. You apparently do not. I don't think I care to talk to anyone who doesn't understand what "no" means. You are a sophist, so there is no point to talking to you even if I wanted to, because you don't believe you exist. Good bye.

Schneibster
18th June 2007, 11:15 PM
I'm going to rate Dustin's performance in this thread 4 Hovinds out of 5.I'm going to make a wild guess that the "Hovind" is the SI unit of hypocrisy, and note that like all SI units it will accept the standard SI multiplier. I suggest that the symbol should be
Hd
which would mean that I would give Dustin approximately 3.8 kHd for this one.

mijopaalmc
18th June 2007, 11:21 PM
I'm going to make a wild guess that the "Hovind" is the SI unit of hypocrisy, and note that like all SI units it will accept the standard SI multiplier. I suggest that the symbol should be
Hd
which would mean that I would give Dustin approximately 3.8 kHd for this one.

Is the Hovind a derived unit?

wollery
19th June 2007, 12:47 AM
Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS. And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.

Sphenisc, it was bloody clear that Scheibster didn't get what you were saying, so why didn't you just tell him that he'd misunderstood and that you weren't actually disagreeing with him or supporting the OP, just adding a codicil that, not only was the OP writer's maths wrong, but the regression can't be treated that way anyway.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!

athon
19th June 2007, 01:51 AM
Nicely said, honorary cousin. I also find it disappointing when people I respect here for their often intelligent responses can be, as you so eloquently put, 'asshats'.

Assclown is another personal favourite of mine. :D

Athon

sphenisc
19th June 2007, 02:12 AM
Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS. And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.

Sphenisc, it was bloody clear that Scheibster didn't get what you were saying, so why didn't you just tell him that he'd misunderstood and that you weren't actually disagreeing with him or supporting the OP, just adding a codicil that, not only was the OP writer's maths wrong, but the regression can't be treated that way anyway.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!

Thanks for that wollery.

Though I think more words rather than fewer might have been more diplomatic, my initial post might have seemed rather curt.

Anyway, I have to go and look up the definition of the word "No".

Cheers:D

Schneibster
19th June 2007, 02:57 AM
Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!Clarity is difficult for someone who does not bother to strive for it.

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS. Perhaps you missed the part where he said I was wrong. Oh, perhaps not: And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.But, you see, I never said it was correct as in being the right way to figure it out; I said it disproved the OP, which is an entirely different thing. Saying "you've used the wrong methodology" is one thing; taking the very same figures and methods someone used and proving they did it wrong is entirely another. The fact that they can't even use their own method correctly obviates the need to even discuss the fact that they used the wrong method, in other words, which was the point that I made, and as far as I could see the point sphenisc was arguing against. It's immaterial, in other words, whether the correct method was used, if the method used was not used correctly, if you see what I mean.

I even repeated my point to be sure we were clear, and according to sphenisc's reply, we were. At that point, I decided I was dealing either with a troll or a woo, and took the appropriate action. Sorry, if you see it differently you are entitled to your opinion. If sphenisc wants to consider clarifying the situation, someone can tell me about it and I'll reconsider. An apology would be a good beginning.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!I call 'em like I see 'em. You have at least raised sufficient doubt in my mind that I'll accept an apology.

sphenisc
19th June 2007, 03:40 AM
I apologise, I'm very sorry. I will attempt in future to strive for greater clarity.

Schneibster
19th June 2007, 03:54 AM
Then I apologize for being nasty. I guess neither one of us can ask better than that.

wollery
19th June 2007, 04:02 AM
Edited, never mind.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

Tirdun
19th June 2007, 04:15 AM
Wait, where's question #2? What dusty old canard will JF pull from the deck of lame challenges?

And most importantly, are we taking bets on it?
Will JF stay lunar and go with the "moon dust" question (odds 1:18)
Will JF ease into tides and mineral leaching (odds 1:4)
Will JF throw us all for a loop with Bible Codes (1:80)
Could JF toss Darwin into an age of the Earth discussion (1:6)
Maybe dino + human footprints? (1:9)
Or a complete wildcard?

fls
19th June 2007, 04:17 AM
Insisting on proper scientific terminology is a problem and causes people to think "well evolution is a theory and ID is a theory so they are equal" So in common usage, evolution is a fact. Limiting discussion to proper scientific terms is only helpful if both sides of a debate are doing it.

I think I meant it as more of a reference to the role of equivocation in the Evolution/Creationism debate, than the insistence on proper scientific terminology. Although, I am also willing to play with insisting on proper scientific terminology. ;)

Linda

Taffer
19th June 2007, 04:21 AM
* Taffer wonders why we are still in this thread. Dustin and JF are long gone...

MRC_Hans
19th June 2007, 04:48 AM
Well, that can only improve the atmosphere.

Hans

Flo
19th June 2007, 07:50 AM
* Taffer;2701877 wonders why we are still in this thread. Dustin and JF are long gone...

Dustin is busy composing a 187453 words essay (in 28 minutes) on a proof of the existence of pink invisible unicorns, following his sudden conversion after a boating incident, reinforced by his quick reading of half the collected works of C. Lewis.

JF is feverishly consulting Talkorigins for his next trick question to us pagans.

ponderingturtle
19th June 2007, 09:25 AM
I think I meant it as more of a reference to the role of equivocation in the Evolution/Creationism debate, than the insistence on proper scientific terminology. Although, I am also willing to play with insisting on proper scientific terminology. ;)

Linda

It is the internet it is always safe to bet on someone being pedantic.

Darat
19th June 2007, 09:28 AM
It is the internet it is always safe to bet on someone being pedantic.

Always?

:wackygrin:

andyandy
19th June 2007, 09:30 AM
Always?

:D

Tanstaafl
19th June 2007, 10:35 AM
Wait, where's question #2? What dusty old canard will JF pull from the deck of lame challenges?

And most importantly, are we taking bets on it?
Will JF stay lunar and go with the "moon dust" question (odds 1:18)
Will JF ease into tides and mineral leaching (odds 1:4)
Will JF throw us all for a loop with Bible Codes (1:80)
Could JF toss Darwin into an age of the Earth discussion (1:6)
Maybe dino + human footprints? (1:9)
Or a complete wildcard?

Personally, I was hoping he'd try to use the erosion rate of Niagra Falls to calculate the age of the Earth.

I've actually heard YECs (on the radio) try that one.

RecoveringYuppy
19th June 2007, 10:42 AM
edited: due to pointlessness repetition of things already covered.

Cainkane1
19th June 2007, 12:55 PM
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/index.htm

kmortis
19th June 2007, 12:57 PM
edited: due to pointlessness repetition of things already covered.

Yeah, cause that normally stops anyone.

fls
20th June 2007, 03:29 AM
It is the internet it is always safe to bet on someone being pedantic.

Where would we be, otherwise? Not at a post count past 1000.

Perhaps nitpicking is pedantry for the sake of pedantry. Or it may be that it is encompassed within the sole use of the word. Afterall, if the inappropriate nature was not implied, then pedantry would be something like "scholarship" or "detailed analysis".

Linda

ponderingturtle
20th June 2007, 06:38 AM
Always?

Of course, it might not nessacarily be correct, but you are placeing a bet, so having only a 95% chance is good enough.

strathmeyer
20th June 2007, 09:48 AM
Hello, I am an old earth believer. I believe the earth is actually 4.83 billion years old, and not amount of science or evidence will free me from this belief.

xingyifa
20th June 2007, 10:24 AM
I actually believe that the earth was created two weeks ago. Because god is one mischievous mother, he created memories and "scientific evidence" contrary to this. Don't fall for it. My personal beliefs have presidence over any thoughts or personal beliefs anyone else might have. My manifesto will be forthcoming although it will probably only take me like 20 minutes or so to type. Don't worry, though; I came to these conclusions after several days of serious thought and half-reading a book on creation science.

Wait...why isn't anyone taking me seriously?

prewitt81
20th June 2007, 03:08 PM
Because god is one mischievous mother[. . .]

Shut yo' mouth! :D

wollery
20th June 2007, 05:43 PM
I actually believe that the earth was created two weeks ago. Because god is one mischievous mother, he created memories and "scientific evidence" contrary to this. Don't fall for it. My personal beliefs have presidence over any thoughts or personal beliefs anyone else might have. My manifesto will be forthcoming although it will probably only take me like 20 minutes or so to type. Don't worry, though; I came to these conclusions after several days of serious thought and half-reading a book on creation science.

Wait...why isn't anyone taking me seriously?HEATHEN!!!!! :mad:

It was created at 4:52pm last Tuesday!! ;)

strathmeyer
20th June 2007, 08:31 PM
I'm a future Earth believer. I think all this reality is really just the formation of past memories for people that will be created in four thousand years.

Slimething
20th June 2007, 09:29 PM
You guys! You can't really dislike the New Earth with one-third more peanuts and a chewy nougat filling. Much better than the creme filling of the Old Earth. :boggled:

jimbob
20th June 2007, 09:53 PM
I'm a future Earth believer. I think all this reality is really just the formation of past memories for people that will be created in four thousand years.

That I don't accept.

"Cogito ergo sum"

You are all features of my imagination though. And I was created just now.

UnrepentantSinner
20th June 2007, 10:46 PM
One of the more novel and schizophrenic claims I've heard a Creationist make was a guy who claimed that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and created 6,000 years ago. He couldn't see the logical contridiction in it being created recent to be old. He also couldn't seem to understand the most important factor in the discussion - it's not the appearance of age that is problematic for YECers, it's the appearance of history.

noblecaboose
20th June 2007, 11:16 PM
Ack! Two earbacked mice in a row! It's a witch!!!

PixyMisa
21st June 2007, 12:19 AM
Is the Hovind a derived unit?
A Hovind is equal to one Gish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)-second.

MRC_Hans
21st June 2007, 01:13 AM
One of the more novel and schizophrenic claims I've heard a Creationist make was a guy who claimed that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and created 6,000 years ago. He couldn't see the logical contridiction in it being created recent to be old. He also couldn't seem to understand the most important factor in the discussion - it's not the appearance of age that is problematic for YECers, it's the appearance of history.Actually, I think this is the only logically sound argument for YEC that exists: God created Earth as it is, old appearance, history and all, 6,000 years ago. Fine! Since God is onmipotent, that must be something it can do.

There is a slight problem, however. Quite apart from the fact that this would make God the biggest liar in all creation, the explanation fits ANY creation account. I can equally well say that God created the universe yesterday afternoon at 3:14 PM, complete with fossil record, bibles, us, our memories, etc. That makes just as much (or as little) sense.

Hans

ETA: Oh, I see this has already been covered. Don't mind me, I tend not to read threads like this in their entirety.

UnrepentantSinner
21st June 2007, 02:17 AM
Omphalos is the only logically consistent position for YECs to take (those who claim the Earty really only is 6,000 years old and we're just incorrectly "interpreting" it to be older are engaging in completely illogical post-modernism) but it's not theologically consistent as you noted.

What made this guy so crazy is that he claimed the Earth was 4.5 billion years old and was created 6,000 years ago. It doesn't just appear as old as it seems, it is as old as it seems, but it was only made 60 centuries ago.

articulett
21st June 2007, 03:36 AM
I believe the earth is flat--otherwise the oceans would spill out.

MRC_Hans
21st June 2007, 05:13 AM
*snip*
What made this guy so crazy is that he claimed the Earth was 4.5 billion years old and was created 6,000 years ago. It doesn't just appear as old as it seems, it is as old as it seems, but it was only made 60 centuries ago.That does sound crazy, but isn't it just a somewhat clumsy way of saying that God created it with an age? I have met several YECs claim that.

Hans

ArmillarySphere
21st June 2007, 06:16 AM
I believe the name for that is Last-Thursdayism. That would explain my hangover on Thursday morning anyhow.

UnrepentantSinner
21st June 2007, 09:07 AM
That does sound crazy, but isn't it just a somewhat clumsy way of saying that God created it with an age? I have met several YECs claim that.

It's a tad different because that takes it from merely theologically illogical, hell my dad suggested to me the Omphalos argument and he was a career Air Force meteorologist, to crazy is that he's suggesting that things don't appear to be created last Tuesday, they really were created last Tuesday but everything we could test about "it" would show it created billions of years ago because it was created billions of years ago... just last Tuesday.

As you noted and I tried to point out repeatedly before I put him on ignore, the real problem isn't the appearance of age, but of history and that gets back to the theological cunondrum of Omphalos. If a deity supposedly doesn't lie then even if it makes an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old... in appearance... but only is 6,000 years old... why would there be evidence of meteor/asteroid strikes occuring 150 million years ago (which never did), numerous extinctions that happened (which never did), varves, chalk desposits, etc. etc. which never happned?

I really can't do justice to how post-modern and insane this guy was without quoting some of his greatest hits, but I've had him in iggy in CF for so long I doubt many of them would show up in a forum search.

homer
21st June 2007, 09:50 AM
Didn't Slartibardfast help build the earth for some mice from a higher dimension ?

Belz...
21st June 2007, 09:55 AM
That's not an answer. If I Google "Ghost Hunters" I get a multitude of hits from people who claim to hunt ghosts. Does this mean it's legitimate? Or even answers anything?

Christ, Dustin. Are you EVER right about a subject, here ?

You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

This isn't a tone ? :

Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Yeah, sure. Who's the weasel, now ?

You aren't Buzz Aldrin.
I was just about to say that.

Who wasn't ?

Belz...
21st June 2007, 09:56 AM
You have at least raised sufficient doubt in my mind that I'll accept an apology.

What is it with people and apologies, here ? Honestly.