A question for old earth believers

[Achán hiNidráne]

Do you not know what "supernatural intervention" means?

Do you know what "God" means. God is a supernatural being, therefore ANYTHING said being does is "supernatural intervention."

Evolution is about natural selection, not some deity guiding life to some inevitable conclusion. The so-called "theological evolutionists" are not much different (and certainly no better) than the Creationists no matter how much the latter tries to ape rationality.

 

[fls]

I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

ETA:

From Gould:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Linda

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you know what "God" means. God is a supernatural being, therefore ANYTHING said being does is "supernatural intervention."

Evolution is about natural selection, not some deity guiding life to some inevitable conclusion. The so-called "theological evolutionists" are not much different (and certainly no better) than the Creationists no matter how much the latter tries to ape rationality.

You really need to reread Zep's post above before lecturing me on this because it's you who is having the comprehension difficulties, not me. Again, pay attention to the word "intervention" your myopia is hindering you.

And save your Christaphobia for the other God-Haters who think like you do. You're just wasting calories pressing the keys to vent your anger at your parents with me.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

[devilsadvocate]I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense.[/devilsadvocae]

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

Devil's Advocate: "I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense."

 

[fls]

Devil's Advocate: "I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense."

I agree. That's why I called it a nitpick.

Linda

 

[calebprime]

A fast K-Ar doesn't hurt either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating


Google is my friend.

 

[Cainkane1]

This website will answer every question that you can ask unless you get even more ridiculous than you already have. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

 

[sphenisc]

Simple math here.

3.8 cm/year = 0.038m/year
therefore, over 1 billion years, about 38,000,000 m = 38,000 km
The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km
Roche's limit is 9,500 km, call it an even 10,000 for fudge factor and you have 180,000 km as the most the Moon's orbit can shrink and the Moon still remain a Moon instead of a ring of rubble
I get 4.7 billion years.

Next.

You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I agree. That's why I called it a nitpick.

I know and I wish I'd included a smilie with that response to you.

Very informative btw. I've been summarizing the differences for years thusly:

- A fact is an observation that we make.
- A theory is an explanation for why we make that observation.
- A law described mathematically how that observation occurs.

They're not perfect, but I think for the layman and the scientist they're sufficient.

 

[Schneibster]

Have you read their FAQ?

No, I'm saving it for a really bad day when I need a good laugh.

 

[jimbob]

First off sorry for this post. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Itake this admission as evidence, therefore you probably aren't not the sharpest tool in the box. I have several candidates for the bluntest, though; may I use evidence now?

I had to read the entire first page before I figured out what the point of the OP was.
So there are really people out there that really no joke for real believe the earth is only around 6000 years old?
Wowsers! Learn something new everyday!
What's next? People who still believe the earth is flat.

Some even think it is concave and hollow (tired wiki and it was down)...


Jim

 

[Schneibster]

You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors? Bring it- this I gotta see.

Worth mentioning, I suppose, that whatever you come up with has to account for the fact that paleogeological analysis of tidal rhythmites shows that the rate of recession has sped up. Seems to me that kinda throws a monkey-wrench into any argument that it's been less than the time since the formation of the Moon- if it's been slowing, then the maximum time will be even longer.

Good luck.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Devil's Advocate: "I think FZ meant they accept it as correct when he used fact. I don't think he was conflating the terms in the scientific sense."

Thanks Satan! Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[articulett]

I just find it funny how brash and rude you are to people simply because you disagree with them and note that it's highly unlikely you would act the same in person.

I think it's funny that woos traipse over to a skeptics forum where they put their ignorance on display to the everlasting amusement of those who are much brighter than them. I think it's hysterical that they are sure they have something to teach those skeptics while being absolutely blind to the miasma of ignorance emanating from their every posting. I so enjoy reading the way the skeptics play with the woos like a cat with a mouse. I roll my eyes with amazement the way claim after claim is made by the woo with nary a smidgen of supporting evidence. And I especially like the irony of how they pout, pout, pout, when somebody says something that hurts their feelings while being utterly blind to the obnoxious insults they add to most every post while pretending to be humble and pious and holier than thou.

You called Athon rude, while being utterly blind to your own rudeness from the very first post. This is a skeptics forum, remember? No one invited your Jesus loving ass here. We don't hold the high opinion of you and your woo that you do. We are generally smart people who like evidence before believing things, and we hate crap science. I think Athon was being generous in trying to edify the likes of you... I personally prefer to use woo for my own amusement. Woo ignorance is particularly hard to eradicate because they believe that faith is a good way to know something--even a good way to live happily ever after. It is impossible to have a rational discussion who believe that faith and feelings are a good way to know facts.

In science we use facts to understand more about reality.
In woo land, you have a truth you want, and you fit the facts, feelings, and so forth into some sort of mental bundle that supports that truth and then you never let a dash of logic penetrate. You spend your time trying to foist your "truth" off on others, because somehow that makes it more true to you.

But the truth just keeps being the same truth whether you believe in it or not.
The facts are the facts no matter how how much you have "faith" in some other notion.

 

[articulett]

I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

Francis Collins, for one.

 

[Stupendous Man]

Given how oft this question has been asked on EVERY CvE discussion board on the internet, I find it surprising that Jesus Freak would have even asked it in the first place. How little time would it have taken to find the answer? Just because the moon recedes at a particular rate now doesn't mean that it always has, and always will. There. That's the simple answer.
What question will be next? Why isn't the moon dust 50 feet deep? These are all questions that plague discussion boards of this type.
And for what, really? Has any YEC ever accepted the explanations? Not that I have ever seen.

I also find it amusing that Dustin Kesselberg is right there again with the first reply, as if J.F has his own cheerleader.

No Dustin, It is not a good question. Hasn't been for years now. Not every question is a good question as you said earlier. When a question has been answered so thoroughly as this one, asking it again is ridiculous. That makes it a bad question.

Jesus Freak, I don't know how long you have been mired in the clay of creationist ignorance, but so far every question I have seen from you has an answer readily available with a little searching, and it will be the very same answer you receive here.

 

[Thabiguy]

The diameter of the Moon's orbit is about 380,000 km, so the radius is 190,000 km.

*ahem*

... But even though the simple calculation doesn't give the right figure, it suffices to show that the original argument against old Earth is baseless.

 

[sphenisc]

You're still using a linear model - just because it gives you the answer you want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors? Bring it- this I gotta see.

Worth mentioning, I suppose, that whatever you come up with has to account for the fact that paleogeological analysis of tidal rhythmites shows that the rate of recession has sped up. Seems to me that kinda throws a monkey-wrench into any argument that it's been less than the time since the formation of the Moon- if it's been slowing, then the maximum time will be even longer.

Good luck.

Thanks, I'll do my best.

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.

However it is sufficent to recognise that if a rate has "sped up"
then it is not constant - if it is not constant then a linear model is inappropriate - which is what I DID say.

 

[Terry]

Thanks, I'll do my best.

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.

However it is sufficent to recognise that if a rate has "sped up"
then it is not constant - if it is not constant then a linear model is inappropriate - which is what I DID say.

If the rate of recession has sped up, then the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago. Even with this overestimate it is still outside the Roche limit. So this does show that the moon's behavior is consistent with the accepted age of the earth.