Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Young earth creationism, the Moon, arithmetic, and spaghetti

Expand Messages
  • mathewmaury
    ... An excellent contribution from our mountain friend! Indeed, the mathematical manipulations seem much too great for Todd s third grade level and even
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Robert Baty wrote:
      >here's a link to a more thorough discussion with much more
      >complicated math, physics, etc. to deal with:

      >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

      An excellent contribution from our mountain friend! Indeed,
      the mathematical manipulations seem much too great for Todd's
      third grade level and even approach my own capacity for
      comfortable holistic comprehension.

      Once you have read the link Robert references, you may wish
      to read this rebuttal:
      http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp

      I must explore this site in detail later. It seems an
      excellent resource for investigating the debate those of
      Todd's ilk stir up to try and cast doubt on God's Word.
    • Robert Baty
      ... As my Goliath of GRAS has so aptly demonstrated over and over again, it is not to cast doubt on God s Word that is being tried, but rather the
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Mathewmaury, you write, in part:

        > I must explore this site in detail
        > later. It seems an excellent
        > resource for investigating the
        > debate those of Todd's ilk stir
        > up to try and cast doubt on
        > God's Word.

        As my "Goliath of GRAS" has so aptly demonstrated over and over again, it is not to cast doubt on God's Word that is being tried, but rather the interpretation of some.

        Now, after a doctor's visit this morning the plan is to take a day trip to Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Mat, I notice that you very conveniently snipped away what I quoted from the AiG article, and you also very conveniently snipped away the link to the AiG
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, "mathewmaury" wrote (post #8041):
          > Dr. Jason's claims that currently the moon moves about an
          > inch and a half further away from the earth every year due
          > to tidal interaction. She did not claim that the tidal
          > interaction would not change as the distance between the
          > earth and moon changes. Gravitational forces (and therefore
          > tidal interaction) would be increased if the moon were
          > closer to the earth.
          >
          > Todd's third grade arithmetic assumes that the current
          > recession rate is independent of distance between the
          > masses. This is not Dr. Jason's claim. Todd is in error. He
          > should recalculate the figures when he finds a fourth grade
          > math book.

          Mat, I notice that you very conveniently snipped away what I quoted
          from the AiG article, and you also very conveniently snipped away the
          link to the AiG article.

          Here is what I assumed: What was stated on the page of the AiG
          article THAT I QUOTED. I did this on purpose. I used the young earth
          creationists' own rhetoric against them. Do not attempt to paint me
          with the scientific ignorance of their rhetoric. You are so far off
          base in your attempt to paint me with their ignorance it isn't funny.

          THERE MOST CERTAINLY ARE PROBLEMS with what AiG stated on THEIR page
          on the topic. Unlike young earth creationists, I am FULLY AWARE of
          the issues regarding moon recession. It has to do with geophysics.
          THE AIG ARTICLE DID NOT STATE ANYTHING about the geophysical
          considerations of the issue. I QUOTED THEIR ARTICLE, and I TOOK THEIR
          ARTICLE AT ITS WORD and showed how the article states nonsense.

          In fact, the other article by AiG in their attempt to clear up their
          own problem at least ACKNOWLEDGES the fact that the subject of moon
          recession is more complex than what THEY MADE IT OUT TO BE in their
          original statement. They just barely mention the complexities, they
          IGNORE geology, they IGNORE paleontology, they IGNORE the genuine
          mathematical model that actually takes the geology into account, and
          then based on their INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE of all of the relevant
          professional geological and geophysical research on the subject they
          spout their ASSUMED young earth creationist "conclusion."

          Now, here's a link to a pretty detailed discussion of the subject
          (that I see Robert already gave you), one that I've known about for
          years and have recommended to people:

          The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

          It was WRONG for AiG to make the statement that they did. I do
          believe that - as is typical with young earth creationists - in
          preaching to their choir (a young earth creationist audience who is
          not familiar with science) they INTENDED to HIDE the fact that
          modeling moon recession into the past does in fact require rather
          complex mathematical modeling - which Jason Lisle and AiG never take
          into account on ANY of their web pages. They just ignore all of the
          professional science.

          - Todd Greene

          Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
          http://creationism.outersystem.us/
        • Robert Baty
          ... Mathewmaury, on my own list, had attempted to take Todd to task for his math. Now, as my earlier comment implied and Todd has now more explicitly shown,
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In an earlier post, I noted, in part:

            > It appears many have noticed
            > the misleading nature of the
            > Lisle article that Todd quoted
            > from and "did the math".

            Mathewmaury, on my own list, had attempted to take Todd to task for his math.

            Now, as my earlier comment implied and Todd has now more explicitly shown, the problem was not at all with Todd's math.

            Rather, it was with the way Lisle's comments misrepresented the nature and complexity of the case regarding lunar recession.

            It kinda reminds me of how some "young-earth, creation-science" types are/were so fond of stating the history of man's knowledge that the oceans had currents; supposing that a certain Matthew Fontaine Maury discovered the same, only about 160 years ago, after deciding to do so after hearing Psalm 8:8 read to him one day he was sick in bed.

            Makes a simple and compelling story; not unlike the YEC lunar recession presentation from Lisle that Todd referenced.

            In both cases, however, the truth of the matter is more complex and lends no support to the YEC promotions.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty








            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Todd S. Greene
            ... Of course, I was referring to the less-than-third grade level portrayal of the topic that was given in the AiG article (which is actually pretty typical
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty, "mathewmaury" wrote (post #8045):
              > Indeed, the mathematical
              > manipulations seem much too great for Todd's third grade level
              > and even approach my own capacity for comfortable holistic
              > comprehension.

              Of course, I was referring to the less-than-third grade level portrayal
              of the topic that was given in the AiG article (which is actually
              pretty typical for young earth creationist articles, because young
              earth creationist just arbitrarily ignore the actual science involved
              with most of the science subjects they love to preach about).

              Also, I usually don't toot my own horn (basically because I have little
              interest in doing so, and it's irrelevant anyway), but while I'm
              currently a professional computer programmer, a field I've worked in
              for twenty years, back in the day I always got "A"s in my calculus
              classes.

              While we enjoy our rhetorical barbs, let us not forget that the real
              issue here, of course, is that the young earth creationist argument on
              moon recession is bogus. The real problem is not that some young earth
              creationists have made a calculation mistake using some equation. The
              real problem is that the equation they're using is incorrect, BECAUSE
              IT DOES NOT CORRECTLY REPRESENT THE FORCES INVOLVED IN THE PHYSICAL
              EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.

              Young earth creationists at AiG like Jason Lisle (and Danny Faulkner)
              completely ignore the science on this over the past 40 years, and then
              INTENTIONALLY give people a FALSE PORTRAYAL of the issue by purposely
              omitting even any mention of the science that has been done. (The false
              portrayal was the real point of my initial post on the issue.) This is
              a standard creationist tactic, which they use, purposely, to deceive
              their audience about the science.

              - Todd Greene

              Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
              http://creationism.outersystem.us/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.