Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Does it suck having to get out of bed each morning knowing you have to go through another day being so retarded?

We're talking about the Earth-moon system. Of course friction exists, but it doesn't do anything to change how gravity works.

Sheesh, didn't you learn anything at college?

No friction would mean no transfer of energy to the Moon. So the question stands: how else is the tidal bulge dragged around by the rotation of the Earth away from the cislunar point?

Please reply to the best of your ability, since we all love a good laugh.

 

[Stripe]

No friction would mean no transfer of energy to the Moon.

Never heard of gravity then?

That's the only thing that can achieve it.

How else is the tidal bulge dragged around by the rotation of the Earth away from the cislunar point?

That you think this is fundamental shows you have no understanding of the motion of the planet and its satellite.

Please reply to the best of your ability, since we all love a good laugh.

And this shows that you are a troll. :troll:

 

[gcthomas]

Never heard of gravity then?

That's the only thing that can achieve it.

That you think this is fundamental shows you have no understanding of the motion of the planet and its satellite.


And this shows that you are a troll. :troll:

Do you REALLY think that the Earth Moon system is a simple two body problem? You are aware that this would prevent any recession, and that 'two body' treats each body as a point rather than an extended body?

Anyway, thanks for replying. It was almost worth taking you off ignore for a short time for the chuckle it has given me.

 

[Stripe]

Do you REALLY think that the Earth Moon system is a simple two body problem?

Nope. It's a plain old two-body system. You added the "simple" to move attention away from the silliness of your comments.

Anyway, thanks for replying. It was almost worth taking you off ignore for a short time for the chuckle it has given me.

:troll:

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. It's a plain old two-body system. You added the "simple" to move attention away from the silliness of your comments.


:troll:

Every one a winner, a comedy masterclass.

Cheerio. :wave:

 

[Stripe]

Every one a winner, a comedy masterclass.

Cheerio. :wave:

Bye. :loser:

 

[chair]

Nope. It's a plain old two-body system. You added the "simple" to move attention away from the silliness of your comments.

Stripe, it really isn't necessary to repeatedly show your ignorance and lousy manners. Try learning from others for a change.

 

[Tyrathca]

So now Stripe believes he understands gravity & orbital mechanics better than astrophysicists. I'll add that to the last of his impressive credentials and genius.

Got to laugh when someone who obviously slept through high school physics thinks a problem is simple and yet understands it better than even experts.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

So now Stripe believes he understands gravity & orbital mechanics better than astrophysicists. I'll add that to the last of his impressive credentials and genius.

Got to laugh when someone who obviously slept through high school physics thinks a problem is simple and yet understands it better than even experts.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

I stepped in a bit late into this conversation, and I admit that I it sounds a little confusing as how friction between the earth and sea is supposed to be affecting "transfer of energy to the moon" and keeping the satellite from spinning out of orbit. If you understood what GCThomas meant by that would you like to explain it for me? Just humor the question.

 

[chair]

I stepped in a bit late into this conversation, and I admit that I it sounds a little confusing as how friction between the earth and sea is supposed to be affecting "transfer of energy to the moon" and keeping the satellite from spinning out of orbit. If you understood what GCThomas meant by that would you like to explain it for me? Just humor the question.

I will let others answer, but I congratulate you on asking the question and trying to understand.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, it really isn't necessary to repeatedly show your ignorance and lousy manners. Try learning from others for a change.

:yawn:

So now Stripe believes he understands gravity & orbital mechanics better than astrophysicists. I'll add that to the last of his impressive credentials and genius. Got to laugh when someone who obviously slept through high school physics thinks a problem is simple and yet understands it better than even experts. Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

:blabla:

I stepped in a bit late into this conversation, and I admit that I it sounds a little confusing as how friction between the earth and sea is supposed to be affecting "transfer of energy to the moon" and keeping the satellite from spinning out of orbit. If you understood what GCThomas meant by that would you like to explain it for me? Just humor the question.

That's because GC is trying to talk about something other than what he got called on.

The moon's recession from the Earth is affected by the bulges of water circling the Earth, which are offset by friction between the ocean floor and the ocean.

However, this was not the challenge he faced. The fundamental aspect is gravity and the saviors he has for the math that shows the Earth-moon system to be young do not work when the fundamentals are adhered to.

 

[6days]

I’m not sure why the repeated reference to “evolutionists”. I don’t think I have said anything about evolution (assuming you mean Darwin’s theory). Is “evolutionist” some kind of umbrella term you use for branches of science you disagree with?

You seem to equate science with evolution. But as you know the word evolution is a mostly meaningless term. The word can refer to technology...observable biological processes...unobservable common ancestry beliefs....stellar evolution...ETC.
I use the word 'evolutionists' referring to people who BELIEVE in everything from nothing....Life from non life....or common ancestry.

I was interested in what it meant to you. Patrick jane admitted he was pretty much just parroting what he had heard on a TV history program. But you jumped in and declared that the orbit is no longer perfect, yet you seem to be really nebulous about what has changed to make it less than perfect. I am afraid you leave me with the impression you just saw a chance to root for the creationist viewpoint, with no real scientific understanding backing your words.

Ha..... Well we were not discussing 'scientific understanding'. We were discussing our beliefs, which I suggested is consistent with the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

I stepped in a bit late into this conversation, and I admit that I it sounds a little confusing as how friction between the earth and sea is supposed to be affecting "transfer of energy to the moon" and keeping the satellite from spinning out of orbit. If you understood what GCThomas meant by that would you like to explain it for me? Just humor the question.

Here's a good primer:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

 

[Tyrathca]

I stepped in a bit late into this conversation, and I admit that I it sounds a little confusing as how friction between the earth and sea is supposed to be affecting "transfer of energy to the moon" and keeping the satellite from spinning out of orbit. If you understood what GCThomas meant by that would you like to explain it for me? Just humor the question.

I'm by no means am expert but I can give my crude understanding. Essentially you need to remember that the earth's sea and the moon are connected by gravity, so just as the moon pulls the sea the sea pulls back at the moon. Because the effect is so small it is easy to forget the latter. An analogy would be two strong magnets, if you pull magnet one the force gets transmitted to the other (magnet 2) and it gets pulled along too. If something then exerts an opposite force on magnet 2 (like pulling or friction) then that will be transmitted to magnet 1 and you will find it harder to pull magnet one.

Another way to approach it is to consider the conservation of energy. If there is friction from the oceans moving over the earth then that will create heat (probably too little for us to ever care about but it will be there because that is what friction does). But where then did the energy for that heat come from? Regardless of how small it had to come from somewhere. The answer is it comes from the moons momentum (which via gravity is the reason for the seas movement and thus the friction).

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

Created kind


"Identification
Main Article: Baraminology
To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. ...
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind

The "Created Kinds" or Baraminology concept is non-Biblical. I've started a separate thread to discuss this.

 

[Rosenritter]

The "Created Kinds" or Baraminology concept is non-Biblical. I've started a separate thread to discuss this.

Genesis 1:21 KJV
(21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 KJV
(25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but assuming we accept Genesis as being in the Bible, your premise seems plainly wrong. That God created life after their kinds is completely biblical.

 

[chair]

Genesis 1:21 KJV
(21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 KJV
(25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but assuming we accept Genesis as being in the Bible, your premise seems plainly wrong. That God created life after their kinds is completely biblical.

The question is what does "kind" mean? Go to the other thread, and you will see what my point is.

 

[Rosenritter]

The question is what does "kind" mean? Go to the other thread, and you will see what my point is.

It's right there in scripture if one just reads a couple more verses.

Genesis 1:24 KJV
(24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Things reproduce with their kind. If you read even further to Leviticus, it gets as specific as vulture, kite, owl, raven, and hawk.

Leviticus 11:13-16 KJV
(13) And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
(14) And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
(15) Every raven after his kind;
(16) And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,


You are expected to be able to deduce "kind" from usage. A hawk is not the same kind as a raven, nor the owl as the kite. But kites mate with kites and they have baby chick kites. Owls nest with owls and they have baby owls, not dragons or cattle or whales. You may have a big owl or a small owl or maybe an owl with different coloration or a slightly hooked beak, but it will still be an owl.

 

[chair]

It's right there in scripture if one just reads a couple more verses.

Genesis 1:24 KJV
(24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Things reproduce with their kind. If you read even further to Leviticus, it gets as specific as vulture, kite, owl, raven, and hawk.

Leviticus 11:13-16 KJV
(13) And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
(14) And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
(15) Every raven after his kind;
(16) And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,


You are expected to be able to deduce "kind" from usage. A hawk is not the same kind as a raven, nor the owl as the kite. But kites mate with kites and they have baby chick kites. Owls nest with owls and they have baby owls, not dragons or cattle or whales. You may have a big owl or a small owl or maybe an owl with different coloration or a slightly hooked beak, but it will still be an owl.

What are ravens "after their kind"? From the context.

 

[Rosenritter]

What are ravens "after their kind"? From the context.

I guess that depends upon what the definition of "is" is. Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't know what a Raven is? The law is there, kind begets kind.