Moon moving 2 cm.
Micah Hewitt
moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
zqa...@Prodigy.com
Roger Schlafly
Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
a foot in 15 years.
250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
An odd one
Roger Schlafly wrote:
you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about 32000
miles away!! imagine how bit it would be in the sky then!!
The trees have eyes and the birds sing the blues.
Boikat
Micah Hewitt wrote:
> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> zqa...@Prodigy.com
It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a
constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
Boikat
Thomas Paine
>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
>zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.
But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
change.
I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.
Gavin Tabor
I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
when listening to this sort of drivel.
Gavin
--
Dr.Gavin Tabor
email : ga...@ic.ac.uk
home page : monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/gavin.html
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College,
London SW7 2BY
Tarjei Straume
Gavin Tabor wrote:
> Thomas Paine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> >
> > Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
> > always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
> > They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
> > and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.
> >
> > But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
> > expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
> > change.
> >
> > I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
> > lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.
>
> I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
> when listening to this sort of drivel.
Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories about its
origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then separated; the other that
it has an external origin and somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the earth
would perhaps lend support to it?
Tarjei
Adam Noel Harris
:
:
:Micah Hewitt wrote:
:
:> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
:> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
:> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
:> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
:> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
:> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
:> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
:> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
:> zqa...@Prodigy.com
:It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a
:constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
:math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
:age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
:comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
391,000 km.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
jeremy howard todd
>Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
>theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
>earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
>somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
>I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
>from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?
The moon's movement away from the earth is a consequence of
the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
(such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.
Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
"locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.
Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.
-jht
--
Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
========================================================= // \\
"M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
David Johnston
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
anyway.
Amanda & Adam Crowl
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
It's not a simple linear progression - the closer they are together the greater
the energy loss. The problem with the Creationist model is it uses a very
simplified model of the Earth that is inconsistent with what we do know about
tides and their energy dissipation. When more realistic models of oceans and
continents are used what emerges is we're living in an epoch of higher energy
losses than the past, a kind of resonance between tides, the Moon's orbit and
the Earth's spin.
I've got a few references I can give, but I have to dig them up. Watch this
space.
Adam
Boikat
Adam Noel Harris wrote:
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> :
>
[snip]
> :means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
> :comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
> ^^^^^^^
> 391,000 km.
>
Doh!!! Still not a problem. :}
Henke Clan
Growth lines in corals and mollusks also give a nice record of the lengths of
months and days on Earth since at least the Ordovician, which of course is related
to how far away the Moon was from the Earth over time and the speed of the Earth's
rotation over time. For example, 435 million years ago, there were 405 days/year
instead of 365.25. The number of days/month 435 million years ago was closer to
31. See Mintz, Leigh W., 1977, "Historical Geology, 2nd ed., p. 92-93. If "Flood
geology" was real, why would we expect a Pennsylvanian rugose coral to have more
daily growth lines/year than a Tertiary hexacoral?
Kevin
Steve Henderson
Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:
}
}
}Gavin Tabor wrote:
}
}> Thomas Paine wrote:
}> >
}> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt
<va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
}> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
}> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
}> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
}> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
}> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
}> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
}> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
}> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
ICR discussion snipped for bandwidth
}Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
}about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
}separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
}its present orbit around the earth.
}I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
}earth would perhaps lend support to it?
}
}Tarjei
}
My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
(and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)
Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
may...@andrews.edu
jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:
> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> writes:
> >Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
> >theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
> >earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
> >somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
>
> >I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
> >from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?
>
> the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
> correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
> create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
> earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
> earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
> (such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
> can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
> momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
> this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
> the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
> complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.
>
> Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
> "locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
> rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
> same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
> planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.
>
> Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
> happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
> stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
> most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
> the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.
Another interesting thing about this whole issue is that it disproves young
earth creationism, although apparently the young earthers brought it up to do
just the opposite (since fossil evidence indicates that the day has been
lengthening for approximately the amount of time that radiometric data
suggest). The tidal-locking that you mentioned is also difficult to fit into
a young- universe model.
--vince
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Reyn
>>
>> (like Pluto and its moon, Charon)
hmn... I thought Pluto wasn't a planet but just a very large ice dwarf.
Pluto shares that area of the solar system with many millions of ice clumps
ranging probably from a few feet in size to the size of Pluto. so Pluto and
Charon aren't planet and moon, but just two ice dwarfs on steroids.
-Reyn
Mike Noren
: I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
: moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.
True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
moon via tidal forces.
: If time was
: run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
: roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
: the old earth positition.
I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,
but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.
I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
probably were equally impressive.
Other than this, I can't really help you. Have you looked in the
talk.origins faq's? There should be something on this subject in
there.
Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 6664125
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007 "Nihil umquam facile"
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Bill Jefferys
>Replying to Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> :
>I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,
>but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
>years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
>Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
>contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
>closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.
IIRC the year was about 400 days (meaning the Earth rotated about 10%
faster than now) in Devonian times. The Moon would have been
proportionately closer (of order 10% with a factor of order unity that I
am too lazy to calculate right now).
>I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
>occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!
>must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
>probably were equally impressive.
I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Mike Noren
: >I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
: >occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!
: >must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
: >probably were equally impressive.
:
: I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
: apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.
Arrgh! Yes, correct!
: Bill
John R Nickolls
Steve Henderson wrote:
> In article <35C9D4CD...@online.no>,
> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:
<snip>
> }Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
> }about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
> }separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
> }its present orbit around the earth.
> }I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
> }earth would perhaps lend support to it?
> }
> }Tarjei
> }
> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> Enslaved, illogical, elate,
> He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
> To shake the iron hand of Fate
> Or match with Destiny for beers.
> An American (Rudyard Kipling)
>
> Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)
Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
to size, orbit etc.
Any good?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls/Paratechnics
PO Box 931 Manurewa Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64-9-268 1743 Fax: +64-9-268 2376
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~nickolls
Tarjei Straume
John R Nickolls wrote:
<previous dialogues snipped>
> According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely.
Not if the earth and the moon condensed from the same mass of hot gases and liquids
and their differences in density occurred after the separation.
> Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
> of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)
I don’t know why this should exclude the possibility that the earth and moon have
been one single body at some point.
> Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
A less likely theory, but still a theory nevertheless. And it’s the only alternative
to the earth and moon having been one single mass.
> Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
> that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
> which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
> to size, orbit etc.
>
> Any good?
Well yes. I have never been a particular fan of Asimov (an arrogant
ultra-rationalist), but he obviously was on to some interesting ideas about the Big
Bang and the possible future destiny of the physical universe. And he may not have
been too far from the truth about the moon either.
Tarjei
John R Nickolls
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Thanks, Tarjei.
I can't necessarily explain it all, just passing on what I've come across. You're right
about Asimov having "a bit of an attitude", but he was a clever guy, and at least
approached his chosen subjects very systematically.
He speculates about a double planet:
"It is possible then, that there is an intermediate point between the situation of a
massive planet far distant from the Sun, which develops about a single core, with
numerous satellites formed, and that of a small planet near the Sun which develops about
a single core with no satellites? Can there be a boundary condition, so to speak, in
which there is condensation about two major cores so that a double planet is formed?
Maybe Earth just hit the edge of the permissible mass and distance; a little too
small, a little too close. Perhaps if it were better situated the two halves of the
double planet would have been more of a size. Perhaps both might have had atmospheres
and oceans and - life. perhaps in other stellar systems with a double planet, a greater
equality is more ususal.
What a shame if we have missed that...
Or, maybe (who knows), what luck!"
By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in fact
artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll keep quiet.
Regards,
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls
Bill Jefferys
>Steve Henderson wrote:
>> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
>> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
>> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
[This is the Giant Impact theory.]
>According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
>the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
>Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
>satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
>the Ecliptic.)
The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.
>Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
>from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
Capture theory is now generally disregarded.
>Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)
Asimov is way out of date.
Bill
----
John R Nickolls
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> At 5:52 PM -0400 8/7/98, John R Nickolls wrote:
> >Steve Henderson wrote:
> >> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> >> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> >> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> [This is the Giant Impact theory.]
>
> >According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> >the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> >Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
> >satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
> >the Ecliptic.)
>
> The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
> explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
> plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
> Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
> equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
> is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.
>
> >Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> >from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
>
> Capture theory is now generally disregarded.
>
> >Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)
>
> Asimov is way out of date.
>
> Bill
Thanks Bill, I learned something there.
Reyn
>
>By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in
fact
>artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll
keep quiet.
this sounds so weird that I really want to know about that theory. fire
away!
-Reyn
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> : moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.
>
> True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
> somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
> moon via tidal forces.
>
> : If time was
imply
...
bo...@my-dejanews.com
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
a linear extrapolation is inappropriate here.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> >> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >>zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> >It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> >is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> >The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> >in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> >a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> >The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> >
32000
> miles away!!
references please
bo...@my-dejanews.com
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> > It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
>
> they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> anyway.
"they" do know. Roger doesn't.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
ill...@nonsense.com (Thom Ass Pain) wrote:
> In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
>
> always constant;
Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
...
She rings like a bell through the night
And wouldn't you love to love her?
She rules her life like a bird in flight
And who will be her lover?
name that tune
efo...@lib.drury.edu
>
> In article <35CA19...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > >
> > > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> > > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > > a foot in 15 years.
> > > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> > They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
> > they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> > anyway.
>
> "they" do know.
Not all of them
" The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies
this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be
much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from
the earth."
>
> ...
Steve Sondericker
Easy, big fella. Darwinian fundies came up with natural selection,
COSMOLOGISTS came up with inflation, Henny Youngman came up with the
one-liner.
**********************
"Her Pa's in the city
He's so witty
He calls it,'The Zoo.'"
Name that tune
*********************
Steve Sondericker
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <6qciuv$f9$2...@208.231.48.116>,
> ill...@nonsense.com (Thom Ass Pain) wrote:
>> In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
>> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
>> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
>> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
>> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
>> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
>> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
>> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
>> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>> >
>>
>> Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
>> always constant;
>
>Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>
really? where do they say that?
dic...@drizzle.com
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <199808060834...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> anod...@aol.com (An odd one) wrote:
> > in article: <6qbmsk$ien$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>
> > >
> > >It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > >is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > >The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > >in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > >a foot in 15 years.
> > > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > >The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a
contradiction.
> > >
> > >
> > you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about
> 32000
> > miles away!!
>
> references please
References? Just read the thread then do the math.
No references needed. Someone claimed that the moon was moving away from
the earth at 2 cm per year, the math indicates that 2 cm per year is
insignificant.
Dick
dic...@drizzle.com
Keith Morrison
Keep in mind that said theory must explain why measurements made by
graviometers and seismometers show that the moon looks suspiciously
like...a natural body.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@Polarnet.ca
Sherilyn
writes
>In article <35d2d8ae...@news.su.se>,
...
>>
>> : If time was
>> : run backward, it would infer ...
>
>imply
>
No, if time was going backwards, inference would precede implication. ;)
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
from physics. But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
your facts wrong here as well.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine
meltin' in a pot of thieves
wild card up my sleeve
thick heart of stone
my sins my own
they belong to me
Gloria (in excelsis deo) by Patti Smith
bo...@my-dejanews.com
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6qija4$d8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
> >In article <35d2d8ae...@news.su.se>,
> ...
> >>
> >> : If time was
> >> : run backward, it would infer ...
> >
> >imply
> >
> No, if time was
were
> going backwards, inference would precede implication. ;)
touche'
...
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>
> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> from physics.
so matt, prove us wrong.
all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
about big bang cosmology.
stumped?
> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> your facts wrong here as well.
there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
John R Nickolls
Reyn wrote:
> John R Nickolls wrote in message <35CCAC3D...@bigfoot.com>...
> >
> >By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in
> fact
> >artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll
> keep quiet.
>
> this sounds so weird that I really want to know about that theory. fire
> away!
>
> -Reyn
Well, all right then, since you ask. Please note that I don't necessarily
subscribe to this theory, and that it isn't my theory anyway. It's no crazier
than some of the notions expressed in this group, and is at least
'interesting'.
Briefly, two Soviet scientists, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Scherbakov,
proposed that the Moon was an artificial construct some years ago (no date
given in my notes, but probably post-Apollo) in the journal 'Sputnik'. They
based this suggestion on (among other things) the reported difference in
density between Earth and Moon (3.3 - 5.5) and the apparently hollow structure
revealed by seismographs. They also point out that craters have a maximum
depth, regardless of diameter, which suggest that they are formed in less
dense material over a denser core, which is in turn relatively hollow.
Weird enough? There's more...
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>
>stumped?
No, you still have to show some "Darwinian fundies" arguing as
"Darwinian fundies" for the speed of light.
>
>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
No, I was using it to disparage your honesty.
Brent Howatt
: In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
: > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
: >
: > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
: > from physics.
: so matt, prove us wrong.
: all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
: about big bang cosmology.
Why? Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is, I'd be
interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
cosmology rather limited. Whether or not the big bang is the best
explaination, I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do not
have an informed opinion.
: stumped?
By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.
: > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
: > your facts wrong here as well.
: there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
: invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
: finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
I thought you were talking about cosmology. Is your knowledge of science so
poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
you don't.
--
H. Brent Howatt, Dir. of Ins. Svcs. | The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
hho...@humboldt1.com PGP public key by FINGER or e-mail
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us http://www.humboldt.k12.ca.us
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>
since few cosmologists have doubts about the big bang why should
biologists?
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
>
>...
i think you're just saying his comments are too sophisticated for you.
came...@my-dejanews.com
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
> > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >
> > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> > from physics.
>
> so matt, prove us wrong.
>
> all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
> about big bang cosmology.
>
>
> > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> > your facts wrong here as well.
>
> invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
> ...
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
>
You are confounding big bang cosmology with inflationary cosmology, the
latter being a subset of the former.
Dick
>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
Well, first you have to name 3 darwinian fundamentalists.
>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
the "c" word is a description of a person who believes in the Young Earth
Creation, how can you call it invective when the creationists made it up
themselves to describe themselves?
Dick Craven
new sigfile under construction.
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Bowen Simmons
>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>
>stumped?
>
Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
cosmology even existed so it is far from clear why you believe that the
Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.
>
>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.
You regard "creationist" as a pejorative? Interesting.
>...
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
bo...@my-dejanews.com
In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> speed of
> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >>
> >> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> >> from physics.
> >
> >so matt, prove us wrong.
> >
> >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> >about big bang cosmology.
> >
> >stumped?
> >
>
> Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
> cosmology even existed
no kidding. can you name any warm-bodied ones?
> so it is far from clear why you believe that the
> Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.
kindly refer us to the post where anyone claimed that neo-darwinism has a
"dependency" on that particular cosmological model.
the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
controversial?
>
> >
> >> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> >> your facts wrong here as well.
> >
> >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.
>
> You regard "creationist" as a pejorative? Interesting.
can't stand the suspense. why is that interesting?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
speed of
> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> : >
> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> : > from physics.
>
> : so matt, prove us wrong.
> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> : about big bang cosmology.
>
because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.
> Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is...
you're an evolutionary biologist, and you've never heard of the term Darwinian
Fundamentalist? don't you think you should GET A CLUE before shooting your
mouth off about something you know nothing about?
> I'd be
> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
> cosmology rather limited.
obviously.
> Whether or not the big bang is the best
> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do
> not have an informed opinion.
obviously.
>
> : stumped?
>
> By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.
if it's green and wiggles, it's biology.
if it stinks, it's chemistry.
if it doesn't work, it's physics.
>
> : > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> : > your facts wrong here as well.
>
> : there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses
its
> : invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> : finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
> I thought you were talking about cosmology.
no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
so much as a whimper.
> Is your knowledge of science so
> poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
> you don't.
is your knowledge of current polemics in the field of evolutionary biology so
poor that you've never heard the term Darwinian Fundamentalist? Your post
seems to suggest that you don't.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <6qqbms$i14$1...@supernews.com>,
> bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
>> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
>> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> : > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
>speed of
>> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>> : >
>> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> : > from physics.
>>
>> : so matt, prove us wrong.
>> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
>doubts
>> : about big bang cosmology.
>>
>> Why?
>
>because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
>wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.
>
What facts do I need? Speed of life is not a biological issue.
[snip]
>
>> I'd be
>> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
>> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
>> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
>> cosmology rather limited.
>
>obviously.
And so your point is refuted.
>> Whether or not the big bang is the best
>> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do
>> not have an informed opinion.
>
>obviously.
And so your point is refuted.
[snip]
>
>no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
>creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
>the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
>so much as a whimper.
>
Sorry, but I see no irony there. If I am ignorant about a subject it
is reasonable to accept the standard scientific explanation, it is
unreasonable to object to it.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh.....Now you tell me what you know."
julius marx
Matt Silberstein
>
>
>
>In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
>> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
>> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
>> speed of
>> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>> >>
[snip]
>the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
>standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
>controversial?
>
No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
came...@my-dejanews.com
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> > In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> > >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >> >
> > >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> > speed of
> > >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> > >>
> > >> from physics.
> > >
> > >so matt, prove us wrong.
> > >
> > >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
> doubts
> > >about big bang cosmology.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
> > cosmology even existed
>
> no kidding. can you name any warm-bodied ones?
>
> > so it is far from clear why you believe that the
> > Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.
>
> kindly refer us to the post where anyone claimed that neo-darwinism has a
> "dependency" on that particular cosmological model.
>
> standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
> controversial?
>
> >
> > >
> > >> your facts wrong here as well.
> > >
> > >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.
> >
>
> can't stand the suspense. why is that interesting?
>
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
>
No, Bogs, what you said was that Darwinian fundies uncritically accept
inflation, which is not the same as "big bang cosmology." Which claim are
you making, the one for inflationary cosmology or the one for big bang
cosmology?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> > bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> >> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> >> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> >> speed of
> >> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >> >>
>
> >the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
> >standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
> >controversial?
> >
> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6qpk7l$2io...@news.drizzle.com>,
talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
> >> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> >> from physics.
> >
> >so matt, prove us wrong.
> >
> >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> >about big bang cosmology.
>
> Well, first you have to name 3 darwinian fundamentalists.
>
> >> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> >> your facts wrong here as well.
> >
> >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
> >invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> >finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
> the "c" word is a description of a person who believes in the Young Earth
> Creation, how can you call it invective when the creationists made it up
> themselves to describe themselves?
the word creationist has no such meaning as used on this newsgroup. it is a
sort of universal, catch-all invective freely used by Darwinian
Fundamentalists to vent their frustration at anyone who disagrees with their
shallow and blinkered fundamentalism. matt, being an old-timer, knows this.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> Speed of life is not a biological issue.
sounds biological to me.
H. Brent Howatt
+In article <6qqbms$i14$1...@supernews.com>,
+ bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
+> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
+> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
+> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> : > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
+speed of
+> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
+> : >
+> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
+> : > from physics.
+>
+> : so matt, prove us wrong.
+> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
+doubts
+> : about big bang cosmology.
+>
+> Why?
+
+because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
+wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.
+
+> Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is...
+
+you're an evolutionary biologist, and you've never heard of the term Darwinian
+Fundamentalist? don't you think you should GET A CLUE before shooting your
+mouth off about something you know nothing about?
You were honking about the supposedly pejorative use of the term
"creationist", and you seem to be using this as your comeback. When asked, I
can define what I mean by YEC, etc. Since Darwin was a biologist and
geologist, it is hard to understand how a strict Darwinian Fundamentalist
would stretch evolutionary biology to include astrophysics and cosmology. I
know of none who do. Since you have made the claim, perhaps you could back it
up with some references from the literature.
+> I'd be
+> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
+> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
+> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
+> cosmology rather limited.
+
+obviously.
It does appear to be substantially better than yours, however.
+> Whether or not the big bang is the best
+> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do
+> not have an informed opinion.
+
+obviously.
My degree is in biology; not physics. What about you?
+> : stumped?
+>
+> By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.
+
+if it's green and wiggles, it's biology.
Not if its a hologram.
+if it stinks, it's chemistry.
Not if its a dead sea lion on the beach.
+if it doesn't work, it's physics.
Only if it attempts to use the laws of physics as posited by luddites such as
yourself.
+>
+> : > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
+> : > your facts wrong here as well.
+>
+> : there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses
+its
+> : invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
+> : finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
+>
+> I thought you were talking about cosmology.
+
+no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
+creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
+the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
+so much as a whimper.
Not so at all. I recognize the merit in some of the alternative explainations
being discussed currently. See the most recent issue of Scientific American
for a laymans discussion of such.
+> Is your knowledge of science so
+> poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
+> you don't.
+
+is your knowledge of current polemics in the field of evolutionary biology so
+poor that you've never heard the term Darwinian Fundamentalist? Your post
+seems to suggest that you don't.
My understanding of Darwinian Fundamentalism as a school of thought in
evolutionary biology is that it is silent on not only the Big Bang, but other
aspects of astrophysics as well. I was asking you what it was that you
meant by the term that it became so all inclusive. You do not appear to
understand science at all. I notice that you have not responded to the other
posts in this thread that respond directly to the issue of the speed of light
in the early universe postulated by the Big Bang model.
H. Brent Howatt, Director of Ins. Svc.| The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
bho...@humboldt1.com FINGER for PGP public key
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us
ot...@ix.netcom.com
[snip]
>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>
>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
universe where fundy means something completely different
than it does here?
Matt Silberstein
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>>
>>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>
>You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
>universe where fundy means something completely different
>than it does here?
Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh.....Now you tell me what you know."
Julius Marx
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35d9c019...@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
>> > bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
>> >> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
>> >> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> >> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
>> >> speed of
>> >> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>> >> >>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
>> >standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
>> >controversial?
>> >
>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>
>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>
I will respond to this, but not much longer since you are just
trolling. First, I am not, by the usual definition of the term, a
Darwinian fundamentalist. Second, I doubt you can provide any evidence
that I get "so hotheaded" about the speed of light issue. Third, it is
reasonable to object to a string of "science is wrong because my
interpretation of the book must be right" ideas. Forth, lacking
evidence and understanding of the actual work, it is reasonable to
accept the standard explanation of any scientific field. It is
unreasonable to make up changes and accuse thousands of people of
being dishonest.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35d8bf77...@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>> Speed of life is not a biological issue.
>
>sounds biological to me.
>
Ok, so you are a troll. <plonk>
Dick
>
>
>In article <6qpk7l$2io...@news.drizzle.com>,
>> the "c" word is a description of a person who believes in the Young Earth
>> Creation, how can you call it invective when the creationists made it up
>> themselves to describe themselves?
>
>the word creationist has no such meaning as used on this newsgroup. it is a
>sort of universal, catch-all invective freely used by Darwinian
>Fundamentalists to vent their frustration at anyone who disagrees with their
>shallow and blinkered fundamentalism. matt, being an old-timer, knows this.
>
Oh really, the young earth creationists themselves made up the term long before
the usenet was started. Try again.
Then again you are just a useless troll, and as such will post anything in an
attempt to start an arguement.
Ken Cox
> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
So is he a troll, or a creationist?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael L. Siemon
<k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
+Matt Silberstein wrote:
+> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
+> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
+> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
+
+So is he a troll, or a creationist?
Is there a difference?
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Matt Silberstein
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
>> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
>> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
>
>So is he a troll, or a creationist?
I would say troll, and therefore we really can't tell the answer to
the second.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> It is
> unreasonable to make up changes and accuse thousands of people of
> being dishonest.
but it is OK to baselessly "disparage the honesty" of a person, as long as it
suits your purposes. right, matt?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >
> >so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
> >explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
> >about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>
> universe where fundy means something completely different
> than it does here?
another ignoramus jumps in with both feet without reading the thread first.
must be a disease.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >>
> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
musing
> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
> >
> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
> >universe where fundy means something completely different
> >than it does here?
>
> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
on this newsgroup? scandalous!!!!
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> > Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> > words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
>
or none of the above?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us wrote:
> My understanding of Darwinian Fundamentalism as a school of thought in
> evolutionary biology is [blah blah blah]
i thought you said you didn't have a clue. where's matt when you need him to
disparage your honesty.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >
> >> Speed of life is not a biological issue.
> >
> >sounds biological to me.
> >
> Ok, so you are a troll. <plonk>
don't take yourself so seriously.
it's not good for your pancreas.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >>
> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
musing
> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
> >
> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
> >universe where fundy means something completely different
> >than it does here?
>
> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
ok, let's try it one last time before giving up. why do you ridicule
creationists when they speculate about the speed of light, but do not ridicule
the standard model of the big bang?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) wrote:
> In article <35D367...@research.bell-labs.com>, Ken Cox
> <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>
> +> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
> +> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> +> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
> +
> +So is he a troll, or a creationist?
>
> Is there a difference?
no, not on this NG. you are either a fundie, or else you are a troll and a
creationist.
wf...@enter.netxx
>ok, let's try it one last time before giving up. why do you ridicule
>creationists when they speculate about the speed of light, but do not ridicule
>the standard model of the big bang?
>
>
because science has one thing creationists dont:
evidence
i know thats kinda complicated for you...but try to wrap your mind
around it anyhow
Honus
>
> In article <35d8bf77...@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
> > Speed of life is not a biological issue.
>
> sounds biological to me.
Which means squat. ;)
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
Astronauts in the weightlessness of pixellated space,
Exchange graffiti with a disembodied race....
Virtuality
N. Peart
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35e0f1c0....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>> It is
>> unreasonable to make up changes and accuse thousands of people of
>> being dishonest.
>
>but it is OK to baselessly "disparage the honesty" of a person, as long as it
>suits your purposes. right, matt?
>
When I disparage someone's honesty I do it openly and am willing to
provide evidence. I do not accuse people of dishonesty because I don't
like what they say or because it would help my case if they were
lying. I do it when there is a disparity between what they say and
what they should know. Do you have any particular case in mind we
could discuss?
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35e1f271....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >
>> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>> >>
>> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
>musing
>> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>> >
>> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
>> >universe where fundy means something completely different
>> >than it does here?
>>
>> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
>> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
>> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
>
>ok, let's try it one last time before giving up. why do you ridicule
>creationists when they speculate about the speed of light, but do not ridicule
>the standard model of the big bang?
>
And I will answer one more time. In absence of personal knowledge or
expertise I accept the current standard scientific answer. I do not
have the arrogance to pretend that I can know more astrophysics (or
embryology or ...) than an expert in the field. I have a reasonable
understanding of the standard model of the Horrible Space Kablooie,
but I certainly don't know the equations. When anyone (creationist or
not) asserts that they, despite showing no understanding of physics,
have a better answer I am suspicious. When this answer happens to
support there preconceived conclusions based on an interpretation of a
document, the same preconceived conclusions that lead them to making
many known errors of science, I am more than suspicious.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35d28cdf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> >> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>> >
>> >so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>> >explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>> >about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>> >uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>>
>> You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
>> universe where fundy means something completely different
>> than it does here?
>
>another ignoramus jumps in with both feet without reading the thread first.
>must be a disease.
>
No, just somebody who you were able to fool with your deceptive use of
language. I doubt you will fool them twice.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <35e1f271....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >
>> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>> >>
>> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
>musing
>> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>> >
>> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
>> >universe where fundy means something completely different
>> >than it does here?
>>
>> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
>> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
>> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
>
>on this newsgroup? scandalous!!!!
That is, you are a troll.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35e1f271....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >> >>
> >> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you
can
> >> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
> >musing
> >> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
> >> >
> >> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
> >> >universe where fundy means something completely different
> >> >than it does here?
> >>
> >> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
> >> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> >> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
> >
> >creationists when they speculate about the speed of light, but do not
ridicule
> >the standard model of the big bang?
> >
> And I will answer one more time. In absence of personal knowledge or
> expertise I accept the current standard scientific answer.
fine. so you consider the standard model of the big bang to be scientific.
...
that is all, your honor.
your witness.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35e1f271....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >> >>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >> >>
> >> >>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you
can
> >> >>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
> >musing
> >> >>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >> >>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
> >> >
> >> >You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
> >> >universe where fundy means something completely different
> >> >than it does here?
> >>
> >> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
> >> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
> >> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
> >
>
> That is, you are a troll.
and you, alas, are still a pinhead.
...
how many angels can dance on your head?
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> > ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> >> >> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
> >> >
> >> >so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
> >> >explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist
musing
> >> >about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
> >> >uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
> >>
> >> You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
> >> universe where fundy means something completely different
> >> than it does here?
> >
> >must be a disease.
> No, just somebody who you were able to fool with your deceptive use of
> language. I doubt you will fool them twice.
which being translated means
"Good dog, otoe! Good dog!!"
throw your dog a bone, matt.
here we see silberstein making excuses for newbie behavior. let's see if this
tolerance is applied consistently to other posters who don't follow him around
and suck up to him.
...
wf...@enter.netxx
>> And I will answer one more time. In absence of personal knowledge or
>> expertise I accept the current standard scientific answer.
>
>fine. so you consider the standard model of the big bang to be scientific.
>
>
most scientists do.
ot...@ix.netcom.com
1. I am not a newbie; I first posted to t.o. in 1996,
possibly earlier.
2. Matt is not making excuses for me, he was explaining your
actions _for_ me..
3. Since I am a follower of the Church of Last Thursday, it
would be more appropriate to say "good cat".
4. I do not eat bones; it would be much better to throw
chocolate to me.
5. Matt is right. I won't be fooled again.
6. PTHHHHHH!
karl
Below is the calculation for the seperation of the Earth and the Moon as
taken from the Illustrated Origins Answer Book. by Paul S. Taylor.
I tried to keep the symbols the same and as accurate as possible and I
hope I didnšt make any mistakes typing it in.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dudley J. Benton supplies the following calculations for an
approximate time for the seperation between the moon and earth (an unknown
amount of energy is dissipated in tidal friction on Earth and the Moon
instead of going into orbital motion):
The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (pp.F160-F216):
Earthšs rotational speed (w)=7.3E-5 radians/second
Rotational moment if inertia (I)=8.1E37 kg-m2
Relative change in rotational speed of earth=3.8E-8 per 100 years
Mass of Earth (ME)=6.0E24 kg
Mass of Moon (MM)=7.3E22 kg
Mean orbital radius of moon (R)=3.8E8 meters
Gravitatational constant (G)=6.7E-11 N-m2/kg2
squared is represented by (sq)
The corresponding rate of change in rotational kinetic energy of the earth
can be computed by taking the time derivative of the rotational kinetic
energy as given by S. Borowitz and A. Beiser in Essentials of Physics
(Reading Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1971) pp. 164-172
Ee=0.5/w2 which becomes: dEe/dt=Iw dw/dt=
(8.1E37 kg-m(sq))(7.3E5 Radiansper second)(sq) (-2.8E-8 per 100 years)
____________________________________________________
(3600 seconds per hour)(24 hours per day)(365 days per year)
= -3.8E12 Joules per second
The total energy of the moon (potential+ kinetic) is given by Borowitz and
Beiser:
GMeMm
Em= - ___________
2R
Take the Dderivative with respect to time of the above equation:
GMeMm 2R(sq)Em/dt
dem/dt=______ dr/dt or dr/dt=__________
2R(sq) GMeMm
If the energy from earth were transferred to the Moon as suggested, the
rate of change of the Moons orbital radius would be:
3.8E8 meters
____________________________________________________
(3.8E-8 meters per sec.)(3600 seconds per hour)(24 hours per day)
=320 million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference from the Illustrated Origins Answer Book page 67,
Paul S. Taylor
Have fun with your slide rule.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> 2. Matt is not making excuses for me, he was explaining your
> actions _for_ me..
He was defending you from the charge that you jumped in with both feet
without reading the thread first to get the context. In other words, he was
making excuses for you. Like the creationists whom you accuse of quoting of
out context, you posted out of context. This is newbie behavior. Matt
argues that this is entirely acceptable. Let's see if he applies this
generous principle consistently in the future, or if it applies only to his
lap-dogs (er, lap-cats).
...
Toto the cat. Just doesn't sound right.
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>He was defending you from the charge that you jumped in with both feet
>without reading the thread first to get the context. In other words, he was
>making excuses for you. Like the creationists whom you accuse of quoting of
>out context, you posted out of context. This is newbie behavior.
Your logic is impeccable. Wrong, very wrong, but impeccable.
> Matt
>argues that this is entirely acceptable. Let's see if he applies this
>generous principle consistently in the future, or if it applies only to his
>lap-dogs (er, lap-cats).
>
Tell you what, you don't like how I treat someone you happen to
pretend to agree with, point it out. You want to claim that I am rude
or whatever to someone, provide some evidence.
ot...@ix.netcom.com
>He was defending you from the charge that you jumped in with both feet
>without reading the thread first to get the context. In other words, he was
>making excuses for you. Like the creationists whom you accuse of quoting of
>out context, you posted out of context. This is newbie behavior. Matt
>argues that this is entirely acceptable. Let's see if he applies this
>generous principle consistently in the future, or if it applies only to his
>lap-dogs (er, lap-cats).
>
>
>...
>
>Toto the cat. Just doesn't sound right.
>
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Unmarked snips. Now, I ask you, is that a
sign of an experienced poster? Bad boy.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> Tell you what, you don't like how I treat someone you happen to
> pretend to agree with, point it out. You want to claim that I am rude
> or whatever to someone, provide some evidence.
you got yourself a deal.
...
big sister is watching
bo...@my-dejanews.com
ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35d529b8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
matt! matt! come help me. toto is picking on me again.
...
Dusty55Art
Genesis. When the sun reached fusion, it had a solid core that exploded,
sending asteroids all the way into the asteroid belt. The dust and ash from the
explosion ended up in the earths orbit, and the moon formed from the dust.
Read the whole story at,
http://members.aol.com/dusty55art/index.htm
If you loose the address, go to Yahoo. Type my name, Herman Rhodes, or Creation
by Evolution, or The seed of the universe.
Dennis Curran
>
> I have a theory about how the moon formed that fits with the scriptures of
> Genesis. When the sun reached fusion, it had a solid core that exploded,
> sending asteroids all the way into the asteroid belt. The dust and ash from the
> explosion ended up in the earths orbit, and the moon formed from the dust.
>
DMC-> YOU FOOL!!! I have conclusively, irrefutably, proven the asteroid
belt was created when Nerfian intergalactic sex-slave raiders attacked
Kumquatsania. This was the name, in the native lanquage, of the planet
that previously existed between Mars and Jupiter. The Kumquatsanian
women were renowned throughout the galaxy for their beauty and, ah...,
er... special "talents". Of course, the Kumquatsanian defenders fought
valiantly to defend the virtue of their women, but alas it was obvious
the Nerfian forces with their vastly superior weapons were ultimately
irresistable. So, to prevent their women from facing "a fate worse than
death" (Nerfians are really ugly and smelly! They smell like GUE!) they
activated their planetary autodestruct mechanism and blew Kumquatsania
to smithereens. A few lucky survivors escaped and created the pyramids
and face at Cydonia on Mars.
Dennis Curran
********************************************************
* *
* "Bring me into the company of those who seek *
* truth, and deliver me from those who have *
* found it!" *
* *
********************************************************
AJ Crowl
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snipped, a lot of sniping at trivia]
Bogs... hmmm, here in Oz we associate "bog" with crap.
Ok... speed of light variation. Justified with no evidence and dubious theory.
That's Setterfield and all other spawn. Inflationary Universe with space-time
growing exponentially - light speed is never actually violated by matter at a
local level. Instead space-time itself expands, and that DOESN'T violate the
lightspeed limit. As we say here in Oz BFD - Big F Deal.
Adam
PS
Creationists accustom themselves to lies that masquarade as truths, so much so
that truth gets buried in all the Taurus excretia.
Charles Dyer
dusty...@aol.com (Dusty55Art) wrote:
> I have a theory about how the moon formed that fits with the scriptures of
> Genesis. When the sun reached fusion, it had a solid core that exploded,
> sending asteroids all the way into the asteroid belt. The dust and ash
from the
> explosion ended up in the earths orbit, and the moon formed from the dust.
Pat's right. Creationists _are_ morons who can't do math.
>
> Read the whole story at,
>
> http://members.aol.com/dusty55art/index.htm
I got a 404.
>
> If you loose the address, go to Yahoo. Type my name, Herman Rhodes, or
Creation
> by Evolution, or The seed of the universe.
--
sic transit gloria mundi
Dick
>I have a theory about how the moon formed that fits with the scriptures of
>Genesis. When the sun reached fusion, it had a solid core that exploded,
>sending asteroids all the way into the asteroid belt. The dust and ash from the
>explosion ended up in the earths orbit, and the moon formed from the dust.
If the core of the sun exploded, why do we still have the sun? Wouldn't the
entire thing have just blown apart? We see what happens when stars explode,
can you say nova?
Dick Craven
new sigfile under construction.
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Robert Gotschall
nos...@spam.net says...
>
> Below is the calculation for the seperation of the Earth and the Moon as
> taken from the Illustrated Origins Answer Book. by Paul S. Taylor.
>
> I tried to keep the symbols the same and as accurate as possible and I
> hope I didnšt make any mistakes typing it in.
(snip)
>
> Have fun with your slide rule.
>
Have you heard this one?
In 1977 there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. In 1993, there
were 48,000. At this rate, by the year 2010 one out of every three
people will be an Elvis impersonator.
The Useless Facts Page
http://www.cyburbia.net/uselessfacts.html
Slide rule?
--
rg
remove spam from email address
T. Bridgman
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:07:24 -0500, karl wrote
(in message <nospam-1508...@maxtnt04-phl-134.fast.net>):
>
>
> Below is the calculation for the seperation of the Earth and the Moon as
> taken from the Illustrated Origins Answer Book. by Paul S. Taylor.
>
> I tried to keep the symbols the same and as accurate as possible and I
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Dudley
> J. Benton supplies the following calculations for an approximate time for
> the seperation between the moon and earth (an unknown amount of energy is
> dissipated in tidal friction on Earth and the Moon instead of going into
> orbital motion):
>
> kg-m2 Relative change in rotational speed of earth=3.8E-8 per 100 years Mass
> of Earth (ME)=6.0E24 kg Mass of Moon (MM)=7.3E22 kg Mean orbital radius of
> moon (R)=3.8E8 meters Gravitatational constant (G)=6.7E-11 N-m2/kg2 squared
> is represented by (sq)
>
Someone failed to properly account for the change in gravitational force with distance.
Let's do this right.
Using the numbers above plus the radius of the Earth (re) = 6.4e6 m
Change in total energy due to the Moon moving from re to R:
Er=G*Me*Mm*(1/re - 1/R)/2 = 2.3e30 joules
Assume this comes *completely* from the change in rotational kinetic energy of the Earth (ignore losses due to tides, etc.)
Er = (I/2)*(wi^2-wf^2) so solving for initial rotation rate:
where wf is current rotation rate 7.3e-5 radians/sec
=> wi^2 = wf^2 + (2*Er/I)
or wi = 2.5e-4 radians per second (a 'day' is about 70 minutes) is the initial rotation rate at time of lunar formation.
Now, assume the *relative* rate of change as defined is constant (again, a shakey assumption but reasonable at this point) so
dw/w = 3.8e-10*dt where t is now in years.
Do the integrals on both sides:
log(wi/wf) = 3.8e-10 * t
where t is the time it took for the rotation rate to decrease from wi to wf.
Solve for t:
t = log(2.5e-4/7.3e-5)/3.8e-10 = 3.2e9 years
Pretty good considering the approximations involved. I'm pretty sure about the
calculus but it wouldn't hurt if someone verified the math.
It's a good Physics 201 problem.
>
> Have fun with your slide rule.
>
Actually, I did have fun! :^)
Ken Smith
>In article <35D367...@research.bell-labs.com>, Ken Cox
><k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>+Matt Silberstein wrote:
>+> Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
>+> Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
>+> words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.
>+
>+So is he a troll, or a creationist?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is there a difference?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Trolls get turned to stone in daylight, and cannot change their
position.
Creationists cannot change their position.
Are creationists made of stone? There might be a slight difference.
>--
>Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <k...@maths.uq.oz.au> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics, | don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland, | Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072. Australia. | (address to students at at West Point)