Creation vs. Evolution

[redfern]

…This is perfectly acceptable when assuming that the Earth today is what we had over the past.

But for decades geophysicists have been measuring and analyzing data that shows that over long periods of time the earth is not a static body. The assumption you refer to is not in line with multiple lines of evidence.

 

[redfern]

Any distortion of the shape of the earth is going to be miniscule, that's not going to do much to affect the moon.

I think an effect that probably has already been on-going for several billions of years is a relatively miniscule effect. But more importantly, instead of relying on “I think” or “you think” in this matter, go to the technical papers themselves. The math is there, in all of its gory detail.

 

[Stripe]

But for decades geophysicists have been measuring and analyzing data that shows that over long periods of time the earth is not a static body. The assumption you refer to is not in line with multiple lines of evidence.

Nobody has claimed the Earth is a static body. It's not.

However, Dr Brown's analysis is fine when testing the idea against what we see today. If you want to change the parameters in the past, that's for you to do correctly.

Your papers do not do so.

 

[Stripe]

So instead of adding to the conversation, you criticise emptily and add nothing theism to the discussion.

Nope. I've described how you have focused on friction, when the fundamentals involve gravity. Have a look at the model showing how the moon recedes and think about gravity under your assumption of an altered path.

See anything?

Don't you ever get bored of writing so much and saying so little? Don't worry, I'm not trying to persuade you, but only expose you to the natural ridicule you bring on yourself for your delusions of expertise.

 

[gcthomas]

I think an effect that probably has already been on-going for several billions of years is a relatively miniscule effect. But more importantly, instead of relying on “I think” or “you think” in this matter, go to the technical papers themselves. The math is there, in all of its gory detail.

Stripe seems so completely besotted with Brown's Hydroplate "theory" that he treats it as if Brown had handed it down on tablets of stone. How can he not see that the mathematics that he offers are so simplistic as to be unusable? At best, they are an order of magnitude estimate, but the errors are huge. And Stripe really doesn't see how friction is essential for the whole receding Moon idea, or that even Brown has implicitly accepted the role of friction in modifying the direction of the gravitational force in his science-fair model.

I've had Stripe off ignore for a few days now, and it is clear he is unable to see any Physics beyond the end of his nose or to contribute anything than faux-snide dismissals to cover his intellectual nakedness.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe seems so completely besotted with Brown's Hydroplate "theory" that he treats it as if Brown had handed it down on tablets of stone. How can he not see that the mathematics that he offers are so simplistic as to be unusable? At best, they are an order of magnitude estimate, but the errors are huge. And Stripe really doesn't see how friction is essential for the whole receding Moon idea, or that even Brown has implicitly accepted the role of friction in modifying the direction of the gravitational force in his science-fair model. I've had Stripe off ignore for a few days now, and it is clear he is unable to see any Physics beyond the end of his nose or to contribute anything than faux-snide dismissals to cover his intellectual nakedness.

:yawn:

Just put me back on ignore and leave it that way. :up:

For those of us interested in a rational discussion, we could provide a better model if we find errors in Dr Brown's work and we can focus on the fundamentals — gravity — instead of pretending friction is the be all and end all.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Stripe,

Thanks for being there!! You're quite concise in these matters.

So I see that Silent Hunter is back here again. I guess his three days went by without a hitch. If he were a silent hunter, he'd be quiet as to not let his prey know he's there. But does that happen? No, not usually.

It's been a while since I've posted here. I've been pretty busy trying to get my car in order. The A/C went, and then the alternator, which was a real bite to take out the old one and put a new one in. They sure don't make cars like they used to. I know it's planned obsolescence. Now my car is back up and running well.

Why is everyone spouting physics here? Are you all trying to 'splain' how sediment played a role during the Great Flood? If God said He did it, then He did it. By some chance He only flooded a part of the Earth, Who cares? You're not going to have to wait too long before you can ask Him yourself. What, you have maybe only 20 years left before you can ask Him? Hopefully, Jesus will return soon and then we can get a lot of questions answered. Oh well, otherwise, I guess we can always speculate. Wouldn't most of the birds in the Flooded zone fly to where there was land so they wouldn't drown?

There must have been some nearby mountains that the Flood did not affect. Wouldn't a lot of creatures, besides birds, go and get out of the path of the Flood? I mean, weren't there birds and bees, and creeping things on the rest of the Earth that you are saying didn't get Flooded? Why in the heck would God have commanded Noah to build an Ark, to save species and kinds of animals, birds, cows, lambs, foxes, etc.? Do you think that God wanted Noah to save just the species of a limited area of the Earth? Why ask Moses to bring Birds and Lambs into a boat to save them, if a number of miles away, there were Lambs and Birds living abundantly out of the watchful eye of the Floodwaters? Why Flood less than 1/32nd of the Earth's inhabitants, and creatures, birds, praying mantises, bugs, that were enough miles away to avoid the Great Waters?

Is is possible that Noah's land was surrounded by airtight mountains so as to cause just a local-area flood? Were they actually all living in a great canyon??! Why did Noah allow a bird out of the Ark to let it try to fly to dry land nearby and the bird came back empty-handed. How do I give you so many ways to flip the coin and you still don't believe?

I give up for now. I have to go and get some more ice water to drink!! I must drink about 15 glasses a day. Stripe, of course this is not a message to just you whatsoever, but instead for Silent Hunter and all atheists and evolutionists out there that have the audacity to say the Great Flood was rigged.

Please Jesus, Return Soon! We're patiently waiting. Godspeed!!

Michael

 

[redfern]

Nobody has claimed the Earth is a static body. It's not.

However, Dr Brown's analysis is fine when testing the idea against what we see today. If you want to change the parameters in the past, that's for you to do correctly.

Your papers do not do so.

Would you please identify which of the papers you examined, and what the specific errors were in the data and analysis they presented?

 

[redfern]

However, I said you were equating science with evolutionism.

Which is false. I never said that, I never implied that. I have said almost nothing about evolution.

Being oblivious to your fallacy of equivocation does not mean you are 'innocent of the crime'.

People who specialize in pointing out everything they perceive as a logical fallacy are often people who have nothing more substantive to offer. In thousands of conversations with scientists, some involving widely divergent views, I can’t recall a single time someone stooped to yelling “logical fallacy”.

Evolutionists ALWAYS use the word in ambiguous fallacious ways. The word is used to describe an observable process- adaptation, then in the next breath used to mean their belief in the past- as if this observable process was somehow a proof of their common ancestry beliefs.

Why on earth do you wedge “evolution” into this conversation every other sentence? Are you incapable (or unwilling) to discuss ideas in other branches of science on their own merits?

Uh..... biologists and physicists work in totally separate fields of study. There is no need to call a physicist an evolutionist, or a creationist, unless they are talking about their beliefs about the past.

What? If a nuclear physicist studies radioactive decays that indicate what happened in the past, then they must be either a creationist or an evolutionist? A geologist that studies the evidence for past plate tectonic movement can’t be just a geologist? Astronomers watching for supernova that exploded eons ago have to be shoehorned into some artificial category? You’re out of your frigging mind.

Patrick already answered you about his wording. And I answered that the position of our moon is consistent with the Biblical account.

And I appreciate Patrick’s forthright clarification. As to what you said, you did not say that that “our moon is consistent with the Biblical account.” You said the moon’s orbit was “NO LONGER PERFECT.” And that is blithering nonsense, since you are clearly incapable of telling us what it even means for the moon to have a perfect orbit.

What I did say though is that Biblical creation is consistent with the evidence.

And on the subject of the moon’s orbit, since your “perfect orbit” is just meaningless babble, (yet once more I ask) what scientific evidence do you have that Biblical creation is consistent with babble?

Come on, 6days, have the integrity to just come out and admit you jumped into the middle of a discussion with a pathetically meaningless (if well-intentioned) claim about the moon’s orbit.

 

[Stripe]

Would you pleased identify which of the papers you examined, and what the specific errors were in the data and analysis they presented?

Already explained. They focus on the friction component, which helps them miss the point about what would happen if there was less land blocking tidal waves.

The papers say there would be less friction, which would mean the Earth's rotation would be slowed at a far lower rate. This is the Darwinist save for the challenge of the Earth-moon system, because the math checks out.

Two problems: First, they assume the truth of their evolutionary history of the planet. Second, they get the conclusions of their assumption utterly backward.

With more stretches of ocean for tides to act within, the net mass for the moon to work on would increase, speeding up the recession.

Gravity is the fundamental process at work. Focusing on friction leads to the Darwinists missing the big picture. Which is how they need it.

 

[Stripe]

People who specialize in pointing out everything they perceive as a logical fallacy are often people who have nothing more substantive to offer.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.

In thousands of conversations with scientists, some involving widely divergent views, I can’t recall a single time someone stooped to yelling “logical fallacy”.

Which is an indictment on their use of critical thinking. Also, that you would characterize a call for good sense as "stooping" is telling.

Why on earth do you wedge “evolution” into this conversation every other sentence?

Take a look at the thread title. :up:

 

[redfern]

Already explained. They focus on the friction component, which helps them miss the point about what would happen if there was less land blocking tidal waves.

The papers say there would be less friction, which would mean the Earth's rotation would be slowed at a far lower rate. This is the Darwinist save for the challenge of the Earth-moon system, because the math checks out.

Two problems: First, they assume the truth of their evolutionary history of the planet. Second, they get the conclusions of their assumption utterly backward.

With more stretches of ocean for tides to act within, the net mass for the moon to work on would increase, speeding up the recession.

Gravity is the fundamental process at work. Focusing on friction leads to the Darwinists missing the big picture. Which is how they need it.

WHICH PAPERS? Show specifically {by quoting) what the papers said that was wrong.

 

[redfern]

Take a look at the thread title. :up:

So within this thread ideas in branches of science outside of evolution cannot be discussed on their own merits?

 

[Stripe]

WHICH PAPERS? Show specifically {by quoting) what the papers said that was wrong.

Did you not understand my post?

 

[redfern]

Did you not understand my post?

WHICH PAPERS? Show specifically {by quoting) what the papers said that was wrong.

 

[Stripe]

WHICH PAPERS? Show specifically {by quoting) what the papers said that was wrong.

Dude, get over yourself. I can't access your papers; most of them cost $US40.

And that is all irrelevant anyway; I've clearly outlined the problem they have.

 

[Silent Hunter]

One creationist says "the world is huge" and the next says "it's a small world after all.' Wow, they sure contradict each other, don't they? If you read for content and comprehension you'd see that Stripe and I weren't talking at cross-purposes. What you are doing is called "trolling." Try dealing with content.

Moron... troll...

Do you and Stripe have more than name-calling?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Why? What I mean is, what practical application does your demand for "kind" require?

Stripe claims "kind" has a "rock solid" definition. You and creationwiki agree it doesn't. "Kind" is a useless classification system.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Silly argument Hunter, since evolutionists can't agree on their own classifications and definitions.

Well, yes, it's an excellent argument. Stripe claims "kind" is "rock solid". If the definition of "kind" is so "rock solid" why does creationwiki have such a difficult time with the demarcation between "kinds"?

 

[Rosenritter]

Stripe claims "kind" has a "rock solid" definition. You and creationwiki agree it doesn't. "Kind" is a useless classification system.

It's only useless for you because you are clueless.