A question for old earth believers

[sphenisc]

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.

Unfortunately, if the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago then it wasn't at the Roche limit at that time. If the moon wasn't there at that time then it wasn't formed then, as most model seem to have that as its location of formation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Icar..148..419K

If it was outside the Roche limit at hat time then this puts it at the Roche Limit (and its formation) somewhat earlier. If the moon was formed earlier than 4.5By by a collision with the earth then the earth would have had to exist prior to 4.5By. So, no it isn't consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Where do I start?

I've read your and Athon's exchanges and he was calling you a coward insofar as you are unwilling to answer direct, en pointe questions regarding your earlier posts. Yes, I agree fully with him. In this and other threads, you like to drop verbal bombs and refuse to own up to them or be responsible for them. In my book, that is intellectual cowardice so I agree with Athon. And, your style is pathetic. Your posts are getting fewer and farther in between as the idiocy of the OP is further exposed.

Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

Now, let's get to your legal scholarship, shall we? You completely misunderstand the Fighting Words Doctrine but that does not surprise me. The Doctrine is a common sense limitation of the First Amendment to preserve the peace and the general safety of government officials from individuals setting them up for potential harm through invective. As you are not the Federal Government, it has nothing (squat) to do with you.

If you hit anyone for calling you a name that upsets you, you could be arrested and tried under the criminal code for battery, at the very least. Under the civil code, you could be sued under many different legal theories and my guess is that you would lose a large fraction of whatever property you have.

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sophist : a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.

 

[Terry]

Unfortunately, if the linear model overestimates the closeness of the moon 4.5 billion years ago then it wasn't at the Roche limit at that time. If the moon wasn't there at that time then it wasn't formed then, as most model seem to have that as its location of formation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Icar..148..419K

If it was outside the Roche limit at hat time then this puts it at the Roche Limit (and its formation) somewhat earlier. If the moon was formed earlier than 4.5By by a collision with the earth then the earth would have had to exist prior to 4.5By. So, no it isn't consistent with the accepted age of the earth.

What's the necessity for it to form at the Roche limit? It can't form inside that, but who says it can't form outside?

 

[Hawk one]

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

The difference of course being that everyone sane knew that Buzz Aldrin didn't lie about being on the moon.

On the other hand, calling a person that has been shown to tell lies for a liar and then getting punched for saying that fact, then this will be much more likely (though not guaranteed, as it depends on how much resources there are to spend on such a case) to land the punching liar a charge. Quite a different situation indeed.

Then again, it's certainly understandable why you turned religious. After all, now you can do your "I'm sooo persecuted" gig with a whole new range of "reasons" why you're being persecuted, none of them including any honesty, such as you cowardly refusing to answer straight questions in this thread.

 

[Slimething]

Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

You like ignoring, don't you? Gotten pretty good at it, IMHO. DK, I didn't say you had written the OP but your first post sure did signal that you fully agreed with it.

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

So? What does that have to do with the Fighting Words Doctrine? Nothing. Do a better job of research before you post. It's too damned easy to anihilate your points.

So, DK, AGAIN, what did you mean by "weasel"?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

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.

I understood what you were talking about perfectly, US. I just don't agree with it.

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.

Fine, I'm a "Christophobe." Any rational person would be afraid the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Witch Hunts, and sitting U.S. presidents who think the Rapture is 'a comin' AND has access to nuclear missile launch codes. Why aren't you?

And of course I'm a "God-Hater." Only a psychotic would "love," much less worship, the capricious, murderous, malign deity Christians claim rules and judges all. Any moral, decent, person would "hate god."

As for my parents, please spare me your dime-store pyschoanalysis.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The difference of course being that everyone sane knew that Buzz Aldrin didn't lie about being on the moon.

On the other hand, calling a person that has been shown to tell lies for a liar and then getting punched for saying that fact, then this will be much more likely (though not guaranteed, as it depends on how much resources there are to spend on such a case) to land the punching liar a charge. Quite a different situation indeed.

You're joking right?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You like ignoring, don't you? Gotten pretty good at it, IMHO. DK, I didn't say you had written the OP but your first post sure did signal that you fully agreed with it.



So? What does that have to do with the Fighting Words Doctrine? Nothing. Do a better job of research before you post. It's too damned easy to anihilate your points.

So, DK, AGAIN, what did you mean by "weasel"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel

 

[Schneibster]

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'.

OK, then on what grounds do you assert it changed? It would seem that you have eliminated yourself as a source of sound arguments on the matter, since you yourself say you do not have the mathematical acumen to provide them.

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.

No, it is not- it is necessary to characterize the appropriate non-linear model. If you wish to support the claim that is made by the OP, or even to show that my claim does not invalidate it, then you must show a decreasing rate, not an increasing rate; this you have failed to do, in the face of my evidence that the rate is in fact increasing.

My results therefore are a correct refutation of the assertion in the IP; whether you approve of the methodology or not is immaterial if you cannot show it is wrong.

 

[Hawk one]

You're joking right?

I could ask the same of you, since you seem completely unable to reckognise that different situations are in fact different situations. Confronting a person who tells lies and avoids straight questions with his lies and evading should definitely not warrant a punch in the face.

So, trying to indirectly associate yourself with Buzz Aldrin is just another pathetic move of yours, and part of your "I'm sooo persecuted" complex you keep running.

 

[athon]

Ignoring the rest of your insulting baseless gibberish, I didn't make the OP. Try paying attention.

Paying attention would be a good idea, Dustin. Try it. He didn't say that you wrote the OP. Wait, I'll find you a dictionary definition for the word 'read'...

In 2002 when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Sibrel was in his face and Buzz Aldrin considered him a threat to both him and the lady he was with and then subsequently knocked him in the face. The Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.

You're equating yourself with Buzz Aldrin now? Does your arrogance hold no bounds at all? Seriously?

Buzz Aldrin probably shouldn't have hit the guy. We can understand it, and probably sympathise, but using violence in that situation was morally wrong. He didn't feel physically threatened at all, but was outraged at yet again being call a liar about something so ridiculous. Calling you arrogant and dishonest on a message board where your posts historically stand for comparison against my accusations is as different as it gets.

Your Christian code says to love thy enemy, to turn the other cheek. How readily you ignore that when it doesn't suit you. Hence I add 'hypocrit' to the list.

Athon

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder, if one feeds a troll, does it just keep getting bigger and bigger?

 

[Darat]

No it just becomes a Christian.

 

[korenyx]

I just got back from AZ where the YE's are still trying to use the Grand Canyon as proof of Noah's flood.

Kore

 

[Schneibster]

In another thread on the SMM&T forum, Dustin has asserted that it's OK to lie about global warming to get people to do something about it.

While I support the assertions that global warming is happening, that it is anthropogenic, and that we should do something about it, I also support the contention that people should be honestly presented with the evidence and permitted to come to their own conclusions, and act on them. The point here is honest evidence. My greatest quarrel with global warming denialists is precisely that their evidence is dishonest; I have therefore a positive interest in pointing out dishonesty when practiced by those who supposedly agree with me, since this permits me to keep the high moral ground.

I am sure that Dustin never expected this thread to appear on SMM&T where those who witnessed his earlier dishonesty would have the opportunity to point it out. The threads in question are available to a simple search on SMM&T. Conclusions are left to the searcher (and reader).

 

[Slimething]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel

WTF is the link supposed to show in support for your incorrect views of either astronomy or Constitutional Law?

Well, two can play at this game. Here's one for you!
http://tinyurl.com/pk5q

Well, enough pleasantries. What did you you mean by "weasel"?

 

[The Grave]

Wrong!

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.?.?.?

Taken from that interesting link: The evidence of scientific measuring by a competent astrophysicist...

"The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year."

3 inches is actually 7.62 cm which of course is NOT 3.8 cm [the correct value]... oh, in fact it is double isn't it?

Yet another faither's error. You know I'm beginning to loose faith!

4.5*10^9 * 0.038 m => 171,000 km NOT 1.125 billion miles {= 1.8 billion km...ie 1,800,000,000} or in other words WRONG by a factor of 10,552 times TOO big!

Maths not your strong point and neither is astronomy...stick to faith!

Griff...

 

[PixyMisa]

Buzz Aldrin probably shouldn't have hit the guy. We can understand it, and probably sympathise, but using violence in that situation was morally wrong.

You know, I disagree here. In the narrow sense, Aldrin's response was understandable and defensible. And I think that in a broader sense, Aldrin did the right thing. Society needed Sibrel to get punched in the face.

 

[The Grave]

Bogus maan, toetaly bogus!

Sorry, sorry...did I say the maths was wrong. Well that's not all is it...?

Cos who said the moon was formed 4.5 billion yrs ago [at the same time as the Earth] anyway?

There are many 'theories' as to the formation of moons; maybe the moving away tells us which one is correct!

What 'IT' doesn't tell us in IT's book is anything about astronomy anyway!

Ha!

So enlighten us oh Freaky one... why does IT want the Moon to move away from us....

Isn't that going to ruin every solar eclipse from now unto the dusk of time????

Oh those signs...their there if you can read them....Ha! Not!

Griff...sweat dreams! Hot or cold; who cares!