YEC "evidence" posted in Christianity 301

[Roy]

Here.

The moon moves farther from the earth every year. If the solar system was more than a million years old, the moon would be touching the earth at that time.

The rotation of the earth, around its axis, decreases over time. If projected back so many millions of years ago, the earth would have had to do a 360 rotation in 2.5 hours ...which would have scattered the water away from its surface.

There is no theory for the initial creation of planets from scattered particles in space.

The theory for the high density of Mercury assumes that there must have been soft material at the outer layers ...but where the outer material was thought to be knocked away by an asteroid hit.

Uranus and Neptune couldn't form within the age of our solar system using planetary-formation theories.

No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe.

Gas clouds are too dispersed to independently contribute to star formation.

The speed of light has probably changed drastically -- so we couldn't use the speed-of-light to determine the distance and age of stars

One observation was concerning 300 remote mature Galaxies that formed 3 to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The secular model expected "zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago" (Video 2 22:07) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...708014406.htm]

For the first one, the moon is currently receding at about 3.8cm/year.* So 1 million years ago the moon would be all of 38 kilometres closer.**

Touching the Earth? Pfui.




*Referenced only for the current recession rate.
**If Mike mistook 1 million for 1 billion, the moon would have been at 90% of its current distance. Even 4bya it would be 230,000 kilometres away - well over half the current distance. It would never have been touching the Earth.

[shunyadragon]

Note: The smelly load was plopped by Mike Whitney

[mikewhitney]

Thanks Shuny for your great contributions to knowledge. Your insights are entertaining.

Roy, sorry if I have recalled anything on the video incorrectly. I am not in a position to argue on details of the video. I would encourage you to start up a conversation with the video's presenter and correct him of any details, as he has actually presented them -- not just things I could recall.

[Roy]

Thanks Shuny for your great contributions to knowledge. Your insights are entertaining.

Roy, sorry if I have recalled anything on the video incorrectly. I am not in a position to argue on details of the video. I would encourage you to start up a conversation with the video's presenter and correct him of any details, as he has actually presented them -- not just things I could recall.

As I said in my PM, you recalled many of them correctly, but they're still PRATTs and Psarris knows it. He even insists on calling astronomers "evolutionists"!

[Roy]

Just in case anyone thinks Psarris is honest, here's an extract from one of his articles:

Over the last 40 years or so, the moon’s average distance has increased by roughly 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year. This might seem like obscure scientific data, but it’s very important. This measurement allows us to calculate a maximum age for the earth-moon system.

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, then in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

But 1.5 billion * 3.8cm is only 57000 km, while the moon's closest approach is 362000 km away.

There's no way that Psarris could have actually done that calculation and reached the answer he gives. Psarris is lying, and knows that dupes like mikewhitney never bother to check his maths.

mikewhitney has suggested I contact Psarris and tell him about his errors. But as his article goes on to show...

One common challenge, that the calculation is wrong, still appears sometimes on the Internet. But no serious astronomer claims this. It goes something like this: “A recession rate of 1.5 inches per year, over 4.5 billion years, produces a total recession of less than half the moon’s current distance. So there’s no problem here after all.”

...HE ALREADY KNOWS.

[Sparko]

Just in case anyone thinks Psarris is honest, here's an extract from one of his articles:

Over the last 40 years or so, the moon’s average distance has increased by roughly 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year. This might seem like obscure scientific data, but it’s very important. This measurement allows us to calculate a maximum age for the earth-moon system.

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, then in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

But 1.5 billion * 3.8cm is only 57000 km, while the moon's closest approach is 362000 km away.

There's no way that Psarris could have actually done that calculation and reached the answer he gives. Psarris is lying, and knows that dupes like mikewhitney never bother to check his maths.

mikewhitney has suggested I contact Psarris and tell him about his errors. But as his article goes on to show...

One common challenge, that the calculation is wrong, still appears sometimes on the Internet. But no serious astronomer claims this. It goes something like this: “A recession rate of 1.5 inches per year, over 4.5 billion years, produces a total recession of less than half the moon’s current distance. So there’s no problem here after all.”

...HE ALREADY KNOWS.

He seems to go on and make an explanation about the moon's recession rate changing over time and was faster in the past. He doesn't show his math though. But from what I know, the moon's recession is slowing and will eventually start spiraling back in, so that much is true. I don't know the rate of change though.

[Roy]

He seems to go on and make an explanation about the moon's recession rate changing over time and was faster in the past.

In the article or the video? He does in the article,, but that doesn't excuse his including a fixed-rate calculation he knows is wrong.

He doesn't show his math though. But from what I know, the moon's recession is slowing and will eventually start spiraling back in, so that much is true. I don't know the rate of change though.

IIRC the moon's recession rate is increasing - it's higher now that it was in the past - though it's not a consistent increase or even always an increase because it varies with the configuration of oceans and continents on earth.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks Shuny for your great contributions to knowledge. Your insights are entertaining.

Roy, sorry if I have recalled anything on the video incorrectly. I am not in a position to argue on details of the video. I would encourage you to start up a conversation with the video's presenter and correct him of any details, as he has actually presented them -- not just things I could recall.

No need to start a conversation for something that is entirely bogus, and you should do some basic research and math before posting trash to justify an agenda.

Your history of highly questionable thread and post arguments to justify and Intelligent Design agenda brings your credibility to zero.

[Roy]

Looks like mikewhitney is now touting Barry Setterfield's cherry-picked c-decay 'data'.

He also says:

I would like to get a website setup to structure discussions on facts, theories, and observations so that details of such theories could be documented ... and easy to see how complete the ideas are. So, if there are papers observing that the speed of light hasn't not been consistent across time, this could be paired up with the opposition ideas that the speed has not changed.

He's got just such a website right here. We've been having such discussions for more than 15 years. Perhaps he wants a website where there aren't veterans who know exactly why his theories are clap-trap.

[mikewhitney]

Looks like mikewhitney is now touting Barry Setterfield's cherry-picked c-decay 'data'.

I would like to get a website setup to structure discussions on facts, theories, and observations so that details of such theories could be documented ... and easy to see how complete the ideas are. So, if there are papers observing that the speed of light hasn't not been consistent across time, this could be paired up with the opposition ideas that the speed has not changed.

He also says:He's got just such a website right here. We've been having such discussions for more than 15 years. Perhaps he wants a website where there aren't veterans who know exactly why his theories are clap-trap.

So you saw (and rejected) the design I had laid out on paper for this possible website? Tell me which part of my design didn't look right.

I wasn't intending this website design to focus a single topic. It would cover many topics but arrange them for better conveyance of discussion details that in forum threads such as in tweb (possibly via a tree structure).

[shunyadragon]

So you saw (and rejected) the design I had laid out on paper for this possible website? Tell me which part of my design didn't look right.

Intelligent Design is a theological/philosophical proposition without scientific evidence to support it.

[Roy]

So you saw (and rejected) the design I had laid out on paper for this possible website? Tell me which part of my design didn't look right.

Obviously I haven't and made no such claim.

I wasn't intending this website design to focus a single topic. It would cover many topics but arrange them for better conveyance of discussion details that in forum threads such as in tweb (possibly via a tree structure).

I look forward to joining.

[Sparko]

If you go to the menu at the top of each thread, there is an option called "Display" that will allow you to view the threads in a threaded tree structure if you want.

[Roy]

If you go to the menu at the top of each thread, there is an option called "Display" that will allow you to view the threads in a threaded tree structure if you want.

I think he wants a more tree-like structure for threads, rather than within threads. TWeb kinda has this, but at a much higher scale.

[mikewhitney]

Obviously I haven't and made no such claim.I look forward to joining.

Sure. I was exaggerating the implications of your earlier response.

The idea would be to be able to have a topic like Speed-of-Light and then a subtopic like Variation of Speed theory which then could have a subtopic like Setterfield theory. Then there could be 'issues' such as: data-selection, theory-discussion, SN1987A. Under those, there might be normal threads (like in tweb) but maybe supplemented with a pro or con designation.

Other subtopics for Speed-of-Light could be: experimental-methods, speed-in-water, physics-constants, etc.

I would probably have sections for Christian topics, science topics, and historical topics -- among many other topics that could become of interest.

Partly the idea is a way to graphically lay out information in a tree structure. It would be a way of organizing knowledge and debates.