A question for old earth believers

[Dustin Kesselberg]

'Rude' obviously = asking questions which are too hard

Why use the term 'weasel' when it reflects your own view?

Athon

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

 

[Mashuna]

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

As opposed to the preferred method of claiming that you've already answered a question when in fact you've just avoided it?

 

[Zep]

Where did I say I would wish it upon Athon? I'm simply saying if someone is as rude as he is to everyone he disagrees with on this forum to people in person then he would have a pretty tough time getting through the day without a busted nose or jaw.

I've met Athon more than once personally. And he seemed to be hale and hearty, and unbusted of nose and jaw, in the main. And in his more recent contacts, he didn't report any of same. I would suspect he would have noticed should it ever have happened... But no - I understand he has other, more pressing, issues, but not actual repeatedly busted mandible and nasal regions.

However your remarks did indeed indicate to many of us that you would like to be doing the inflicting yourself, i.e. a direct threat. Or, at a minimum, be glad if they should happen at your behest, i.e. an indirect threat. While you may have meant it as a wish-list, that's how it comes across. Maybe you are right - maybe writing does need tones... Yours is not pleasant, from this side.

Thin ice, fella.

 

[Zep]

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

It's called "Not re-inventing the wheel for the millionth time".

 

[Darat]

I've decided not to move the posts so far that have been Dustin's trolling and the responses to that to AAH (even though they should be since they are off topic). However from now on please stick to discussing the OP since that is a question quite appropriate for the "Science..." section of the Forum, otherwise I will start moving the inappropriate stuff to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Zep]

PS. Justin, no, I did not report anything to the Mods.

 

[Curnir]

How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

wow

 

[SomeGuy]

Regardless of everything else:

1 mile = 63,360 inches

3 inches * 450,000,000 years = 1,350,000,000 inches

1,350,000,000 / 63,3600 = 213,068.18 miles.

Well within the 240,000 miles.

QED.

However there are things more seriously wrong with JF basic numbers, the moon moves away 3.8 cm per year this is: 3,8 * 0.3937 = 1,5 inches.

This is only half what you claimed the speed was... this naturally results in only 106,500 miles per 4,5 billion years.

Any other questions Jesus Freak?

 

[Fontwell]

At the risk of spoiling all the fun, it is most likely that the moon was created over a certain period in time at a certain distance from the earth (see below). Any regression to times before that is meaningless.

From curious.astro.cornell.edu

"The Moon is thought to have formed when an object roughly the size of Mars hit the Earth. The impact was so violent that it threw large amounts of the Earth's mantle into orbit. This material evenually coalesced and formed the Moon.

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. (The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.)

... The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time...The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

You are assuming that the effect is linear. It is not.

Read here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=700

Hans

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of my favorite problematic linear pro/regressions is the claim that at population growth X annually, starting with 8 people in 2000 B.C. you wind up with 6 billion today. Wow! Except that looking at the math you wind up with a few hundred world-wide during the time the pyramids were being built and a few tens of thousands at a time when Rome's population alone was known to be over 100,000 (or was it a million, I forget).

 

[Big Al]

Good point, Sinner. Population growth is exponential, as are many natural functions. However, there are damping functions such as overcrowding, disease, droughts, overfarming famines, etc. that can increase at varying rates more or less proportional to population density. It's not a smiple, linear equation, and neither are many natural phenomena, including the moon's distance from the earth.

Weasels don't enter into the maths as far as I know.

 

[Megalodon]

Where did I say I would wish it upon Athon? I'm simply saying if someone is as rude as he is to everyone he disagrees with on this forum to people in person then he would have a pretty tough time getting through the day without a busted nose or jaw.

Considering that you're the one who thinks that the main muscle driving a punch is the pectoral, the only way you could contribute to a busted jaw is by making people laugh too hard.

BTW, quit the act... American you are not...

 

[Dr Adequate]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

Summary for jesus_freak.

* Your maths is wrong. And this should have been obvious to you: if the moon had moved over a billion miles in only a few billion years, then it would have to be moving hundreds of yards per year, not 3 inches.

* Your physics is wrong. You can't just assume that the process is linear. It isn't.

* Your facts are wrong. The moon is not receding at three inches a year. It's receding by about 1½ inches a year.

* Young Earth Creationism is wrong. Face it.

 

[TriangleMan]

Dr A. you forgot to add this to your list:

* Your source is wrong. the people who provided you with this ridiculous analysis of the moon's recession are either:
a) deliberately deceiving and lying to you; or
b) incapable of doing basic math
so why accept any of their information?

 

[Darat]

Dr A. you forgot to add this to your list:

* Your source is wrong. the people who provided you with this ridiculous analysis of the moon's recession are either:
a) deliberately deceiving and lying to you; or
b) incapable of doing basic math
so why accept any of their information?

Me please teacher! I know the answer to that one!

'cos it confirms what they want to believe.

Do I get a gold star?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Summary for jesus_freak.

* Your maths is wrong. And this should have been obvious to you: if the moon had moved over a billion miles in only a few billion years, then it would have to be moving hundreds of yards per year, not 3 inches.

I think he is just refusing to recognize that there is a difference between a foot and a mile.

 

[sackett]

Once again, Creeping Jesus posts and then "Dustin" takes over. It's too soon to say that there's a pattern here, but it makes me wonder.

Hey, it's Friday. Somebody tell me to relax.

 

[Molinaro]

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

*Changes his mind about troll feeding*

 

[Baron Samedi]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

3 inches x 4.5 billion years = 1.125 billion miles?

I guess the saying is true. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.