Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Help needed

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    58
    Another bulletin board I visit has had a post from a creation "scientist", I know that his statements can be disproved but would like some specifics to reply with, the points are as follows :-
    a) Claims that at the rate Sol is shrinking it cannot be as old as claimed, and that at the shrinking rate even 100,000 would have been too large to allow life to exist on Earth.
    b) Moon Dust, claim is that not enough has fallen for the Moon to be as old as claimed.
    c) Moon, claim that Moon is receding (orbit expanding) and that rate of recession means Moon cannot be as old as claimed.
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.
    e) Saturn, claims that ring system is unstable, therefore cannot be old.
    f) Jupiter and Saturn, claim that both radiate more heat than receive from Sol, therefore in old system would have cooled further than they have done by now.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    33
    I am not one who can give you the answers you desire but I can point you in a direction that might help you find the answers you seek.

    Over Here

    Hauteden

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    13
    http://www.talkorigins.org

    Is a good place to start.

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,570
    I'm no expert on these matters but will give it a shot just for yucks. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    a) Claims that at the rate Sol is shrinking it cannot be as old as claimed, and that at the shrinking rate even 100,000 would have been too large to allow life to exist on Earth.
    Russ Replies: It's not like the Sun started out huge and started shrinking until it becomes the size of the head of a pin. Stars go through cycles just like everything else in the universe. It may be shrinking now but will expand later and then shrink again, etc. To say that it is shrinking too fast to be billions of years old, is an example of someone showing off their ignorance.

    b) Moon Dust, claim is that not enough has fallen for the Moon to be as old as claimed.
    Russ Replies: Again, an over simplification of a complex system. The "fall rate" of dust on the Moon is/was non-linear, so saying there isn't enough for whatever reason, is naive.

    c) Moon, claim that Moon is receding (orbit expanding) and that rate of recession means Moon cannot be as old as claimed.
    Russ Replies: Yet again, an over simplification of a complex system. There are HUGE numbers of variables that affected the Moons orbit over the billions of years. It is, obviously, massively createred, with some creaters that are HUGE. This in itself will have an effect. Plus, if I remmember correctly, the Moon didn't start spiralling out until it became tidally locked (same face to Earth all the time) so you can lop a billion & change years off distance calculation there.

    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.
    Russ Replies: I had not heard of this, so I can't comment. I would expect that it is yet another over simplification of a complex system.

    e) Saturn, claims that ring system is unstable, therefore cannot be old.
    Russ Replies: This one is pretty well known. There are moons imbedded in the rings that, due to their orbital dynamics, maintain the rings. They are called "shepard moons" and, by their gravitational influence, keep the smaller particles in stable orbits. This knowledge dates back to when the Voyagers flew by in the 80's. Sounds like somebody showing off their ignorace again.

    f) Jupiter and Saturn, claim that both radiate more heat than receive from Sol, therefore in old system would have cooled further than they have done by now.
    Russ Replies: Let's all sing the chourus together this time. "Over simplification of a compelx system." We can guess what the rocky cores of these planets are made from, but actually seeing/sampling is out of the question for at least a hundred (probably more) years. For this reason, we can only speculate what is going on inside. Who are the "Creation Scientists" to say they would be colder if they were "old"? What is their proof? Evidence! Facts & observations only please. Opinions and hearsay shall be left outside the door.

    I don't know if this helps or not. I wish you the best of luck with these folks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,216
    Always happy to help stifle the usually trivial arguments of creationists with evidence and correct interpretations of the laws of nature:

    http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html

    and

    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...fic_arguments/

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astro....html#American Scientific Affiliation

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astro...6Phillips.html

    It's always the same. Creationists are happy to use science when they think they can prove a point regarding creationism, but in doing so ridicule the scientists who actually do the science and discover or use these same laws. What's worse, creationist usually distort, twist, and misrepresent the science they purport to use to disprove science (or make bizarre extrapolations without thought).

    Have fun!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    a) Claims that at the rate Sol is shrinking it cannot be as old as claimed, and that at the shrinking rate even 100,000 would have been too large to allow life to exist on Earth.

    The claim is based on a paper which appeared as a meeting abstract ("Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter", Eddy & Boornazian, 1979, abstract presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society), but was withdrawn by the authors before publication, because it was wrong. Not exactly an auspicious source of "supporting evidence". There has been much study of the solar radius since then, and we now know that (a) the sun is not systematically shrinking in any measureable amount, and (b) the sun does pulsate over the course of a solar cycle. I have already written a detailed response to this claim, "A Response to the shrinking sun argument", where you can find references to observations contrary to creationist claims.

    Standard theory of stellar evolution does call for the sun to be shrinking slightly as it ages along the main sequence. But this effect is too small for us to measure, and would probably have the sun shrink to about 97% or perhaps 95% of its starting diamter, by the time it is ready to leave the main sequence and head for the red giant branch.

    b) Moon Dust, claim is that not enough has fallen for the Moon to be as old as claimed.

    I have already written an extensive response to this claim: "Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth". The claim is based on measurements of dust carried out in the Himalaya mountains (with instruments not specifically designed for that purpose), and published in Scientific American, in the mid 50's I believe, but I can't remember the correct publication date (but I have seen the original paper). The dust was a mixture of terrestrial and extraterrestrial, with the extraterrestrial fraction deduced by assuming that all of the nickel in the dust was of extraterrestrial origin (which turns out not to be a very good assumption). Creationists cite the high end of the range given by the author as the definitive measurement (taking the results out of correct context).

    My response uses figures derived by in situ measurements of impacts on the Long Duration Exposure Facility, as well as several dust infall estimates based on meteor shower observations. All of the modern estimate fall well short of the numbers cited by creationists (who never even mention the existence of the numerous, better qualified studies carried out since their cited study, which was also the first of its kind).

    c) Moon, claim that Moon is receding (orbit expanding) and that rate of recession means Moon cannot be as old as claimed.

    I have already written a detailed response to this argument as well: "The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System". The creationist claim is based on a paper published in 1963 ("Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth's Rotation", Louis B. Slichter, Journal of Geophysical Research, 68(14), July 15, 1963). They commonly make no mention of any published work since then.

    Slichter raised a real problem. It appeared that the moon must have been in orbit around the earth, for a longer period than tidal dynamics allowed. However, Slichter & others only had very basic mathematical tools available at the time for analyzing the problem. The simple computations assume that all energy is transferred from the earth to the moon. However, in reality, energy is lost in tidal friction to the oceans. Slichter knew this, but could not compute the tidal losses. Extensive research since then (cited in my paper, never cited by creationists) has demonstrated that the dynamic age of the earth-moon system is consistent (or can be consistent) with the radiometric age of the earth.

    But it needs to be pointed out that there is no a-priori reason why the two ages must be the same. Although the capture hypothesis is no longer a popular explantion for the origin of the earth's moon, it is not an unreasonable or unscientific notion. If indeed the moon had been captured into orbit, it could have happened during a considerable time period after the formation of the earth.

    Creationists do not cite current research, but do their own calculations (Walter Brown & Don DeYoung for example). However, their simplistic calculations assume only energy transfer from a solid earth tidal bulge with no dissipation, a recipe now known to be wrong, despite the fact that they do it anyway. But even then, they both derive a maximum dynamic age about 1.5 billion years. They then have to talk themselves, and the reader, into believing that 10,000 years is OK too. It's kind of hilarious, really.

    Extensive references & details are in my paper.

    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.

    A claim I have never heard. The half-life of U-236 is 23,420,000 years, and that of Th-230 is 75,380. The parent isotopes also have short half lives, relative to the age of the moon. It is unlikely that we would see much of either on the moon, if it were primordial. I searched and found no papers reporting either isotope in lunar rocks, so I have no idea what to make of the claim. It may be possible to create tiny amounts of either in solar wind reactions with exposed surface rocks, by breaking apart nuclei not usually recognized as parents, but that's just a blind guess.

    e) Saturn, claims that ring system is unstable, therefore cannot be old.

    This one is also based on outdated arguments. maybe 50 years ago, this was in fact a serious question. An unadorned ring system such as Saturn's should "evaporate" at the outer edge relatively quickly, say 100,000,000 years tops. However, the arrival of the Voyager spacecraft at the Saturnian system revealed the presence of shepherd satellites that can stablize the rings for longer periods. The combination of shepherds and a very complex resonsnce structure in the rings (also discovered by Voyager), will produce stability that can last for the age of the solar system. I haven't written about this one yet, but you can find a discussion of the stability & lifetime of Saturn's rings in the book Solar System Dynamics by C.D. Murray & S.F. Dermott, Cambridge University Press, 1999).

    But it also needs to be mentioned that, as for the earth-moon system, there is once again no a-prori reason for believing that the rings of Saturn must be as old as the planet. How do we know that the process of ring formation is not something that happened only 1,000,000,000 years ago, or even only 100,000,000 years ago? Even if the rings are unstable over 100,000,000 years, how do we know that it isn't their real age?

    f) Jupiter and Saturn, claim that both radiate more heat than receive from Sol, therefore in old system would have cooled further than they have done by now.

    Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune all radiate more heat than they receive from the sun, with Neptune being the planet most "out of balance". But that claim that they should have cooled by now is pure semantics. In physics, we calculate things, and cooling rates are way up there in the pantheon of things we know how to calculate. All four of the major planets are far too large to have cooled by now, because they continually generate internal heat through friction, as the heavy helium sinks through the light hydrogen. You can find this discussed, for instance, in the book The Solar System by T. Encrenaz, J.-P. Bibring & M. Blanc, Springer 1990 & 1995. See section 7.2 (p. 215), "The Internal Structure of the Giant Planets".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    31
    On 2001-10-30 15:27, Tim Thompson wrote:
    ...
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.

    A claim I have never heard. The half-life of U-236 is 23,420,000 years, and that of Th-230 is 75,380. The parent isotopes also have short half lives, relative to the age of the moon. It is unlikely that we would see much of either on the moon, if it were primordial. I searched and found no papers reporting either isotope in lunar rocks, so I have no idea what to make of the claim. It may be possible to create tiny amounts of either in solar wind reactions with exposed surface rocks, by breaking apart nuclei not usually recognized as parents, but that's just a blind guess.
    This claim interested me as well, so I took it upon myself to research it quickly over the internet.

    All I found was a bunch of sites stating and refuting it. I know that the source of the claim is Kent Hovind, who apparantly got the claim from someone else. I also know that the data originated from the "Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference" volume II (presumably roughly around page 1200), though I wasn't able to find an ISBN number for this.

    Does anyone have a source for the Hovind claim? (like, a specific book or lecture or whatever?)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    58
    Thank you all for the help, so far I have been able to formulate responses to all the claims made, I now expect a deafening silence.
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,216
    On 2001-10-30 15:27, Tim Thompson wrote:

    Standard theory of stellar evolution does call for the sun to be shrinking slightly as it ages along the main sequence. But this effect is too small for us to measure, and would probably have the sun shrink to about 97% or perhaps 95% of its starting diamter, by the time it is ready to leave the main sequence and head for the red giant branch.

    I don't believe that's right. The core of our Sun is almost certainly contracting, and its envelope, in response, must be expanding (re-check your notes).

    The following is meant for the general audience.

    If the energy coming out of the core can balance the energy leaving the surface (and everywhere in between), then the radius of the star will not change. However, every fusion reaction within our Sun's core replaces 4 protons with 1 helium nucleus, leaving 3 fewer particles to supply the necessary pressure to support itself (and the overlying layers) from the "weight" of gravity.

    So gravity gets the upper hand and forces the core to contract - heating the core, increasing its energy output (due to the sensitivity of E(nuc) to T). An increase in energy production from the core must result in an accompanying expansion of the Sun's envelope. Whether the star also changes its luminosity and/or surface temperature depends upon the modes of energy transport and the opacity of the gas in the envelope and near the surface (i.e., details, details).

    Recent models of our Sun's history have its radius increasing by ~14% since its start on the Zero Age Main Sequence ~4.5 billion years ago (T_eff has increased by ~2%, and the luminosity by ~40% or so).

    A star with temporarily no (or a weak) energy source at its center will indeed contract, otherwise, expansion is in the offing. This is the situation facing stars a bit more massive than our Sun just after leaving the main sequence.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    Thank you all for the help, so far I have been able to formulate responses to all the claims made, I now expect a deafening silence.
    Optomist, aren't you. This is a creation scientist you're talking about. It would be more realistic to expect a a blast of obfuscating verbiage. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
    Good luck! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    _________________
    All else (is never) being equal.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-10-31 11:41 ]</font>

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,078
    On 2001-10-30 01:55, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:
    Another bulletin board I visit has had a post from a creation "scientist", I know that his statements can be disproved but would like some specifics to reply with, the points are as follows :-
    a) Claims that at the rate Sol is shrinking it cannot be as old as claimed, and that at the shrinking rate even 100,000 would have been too large to allow life to exist on Earth.
    b) Moon Dust, claim is that not enough has fallen for the Moon to be as old as claimed.
    c) Moon, claim that Moon is receding (orbit expanding) and that rate of recession means Moon cannot be as old as claimed.
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.
    e) Saturn, claims that ring system is unstable, therefore cannot be old.
    f) Jupiter and Saturn, claim that both radiate more heat than receive from Sol, therefore in old system would have cooled further than they have done by now.
    I love these claims!!! They remind me of that famous quote from Mark Twain (which I can't seem to find) concerning the current rate at which the Mississippi River is shrinking in length. If extrapolated to the past, it means the river would have started out to be many millions of miles in length, and if projected into the future, it'd only be a mile or so long in another so many years. Ya just can't use current data to predict the past or the future without showing it to be constant (i.e. the decay of carbon 3 for instance). Silly people. . .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,677
    I love these claims!!! They remind me of that famous quote from Mark Twain (which I can't seem to find) concerning the current rate at which the Mississippi River is shrinking in length. If extrapolated to the past, it means the river would have started out to be many millions of miles in length, and if projected into the future, it'd only be a mile or so long in another so many years. Ya just can't use current data to predict the past or the future without showing it to be constant (i.e. the decay of carbon 3 for instance). Silly people. . .
    Well, if you want that quote, you might just click on this link and look at the bottom of the page. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    http://www.badastronomy.com/

    __________________
    David Hall
    "Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it."

    (forgot the stupid link.)

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2001-10-31 12:01 ]</font>

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,078
    On 2001-10-31 12:00, David Hall wrote:
    I love these claims!!! They remind me of that famous quote from Mark Twain (which I can't seem to find) concerning the current rate at which the Mississippi River is shrinking in length. If extrapolated to the past, it means the river would have started out to be many millions of miles in length, and if projected into the future, it'd only be a mile or so long in another so many years. Ya just can't use current data to predict the past or the future without showing it to be constant (i.e. the decay of carbon 3 for instance). Silly people. . .
    Well, if you want that quote, you might just click on this link and look at the bottom of the page. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    http://www.badastronomy.com/

    __________________
    David Hall
    "Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it."

    (forgot the stupid link.)

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2001-10-31 12:01 ]</font>
    Hey!!! there it is!! I knew it was somewhere. It's just been too long since I've been to the main page, I guess! Thanks Dave! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    79
    The Mississippi argument has a variation which I always thought was funny, I saw it originally in John Allen Paulos' Innumeracy. Anyway, you say that the waiting period for an abortion has been increasing over the past few years, and then extrapolate that in just a few years, the waiting period will be 10 months!

    I know, it's the same thing. But still funny...

    Ok, back to homework. Don't I know it's Halloween?

    <font color="red">`v`</font>
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    Um.. it's a smiley face. With horns on top. Or something....

    Ben Benoy


    <font size=-2>You don't even want to know how many times I edited this for my fab horn effect...</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ben Benoy on 2001-11-01 00:22 ]</font>

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,677
    My favorite one of this type was one I saw long long ago in a book from <u>The Journal of Irreproducible Results</u>. The study went on to show that the average length of words in the English language was decreasing and the average number of words in a sentence was also decreasing. Therefore, sometime around 2050, English sentences should average zero words of zero letters.

    Better get all your thoughts out now, boys. Because soon it's going to get much harder to communicate. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,283
    Ha! Shows what you know. By 2050, we'll all be using Newspeak.

    Newspeak double plus good.

    {Manical grin}

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    321
    Does this article, which is addressing the concentration of trace elements from the sun found in the lunar soil, relate to this topic?

    http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml#lunarsoil

    On 2001-10-31 00:41, Lusion wrote:
    On 2001-10-30 15:27, Tim Thompson wrote:
    ...
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.

    A claim I have never heard. The half-life of U-236 is 23,420,000 years, and that of Th-230 is 75,380. The parent isotopes also have short half lives, relative to the age of the moon. It is unlikely that we would see much of either on the moon, if it were primordial. I searched and found no papers reporting either isotope in lunar rocks, so I have no idea what to make of the claim. It may be possible to create tiny amounts of either in solar wind reactions with exposed surface rocks, by breaking apart nuclei not usually recognized as parents, but that's just a blind guess.
    This claim interested me as well, so I took it upon myself to research it quickly over the internet.

    All I found was a bunch of sites stating and refuting it. I know that the source of the claim is Kent Hovind, who apparantly got the claim from someone else. I also know that the data originated from the "Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference" volume II (presumably roughly around page 1200), though I wasn't able to find an ISBN number for this.

    Does anyone have a source for the Hovind claim? (like, a specific book or lecture or whatever?)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    897
    On 2001-10-31 00:41, Lusion wrote:
    On 2001-10-30 15:27, Tim Thompson wrote:
    ...
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.

    A claim I have never heard. The half-life of U-236 is 23,420,000 years, and that of Th-230 is 75,380. The parent isotopes also have short half lives, relative to the age of the moon. It is unlikely that we would see much of either on the moon, if it were primordial. I searched and found no papers reporting either isotope in lunar rocks, so I have no idea what to make of the claim. It may be possible to create tiny amounts of either in solar wind reactions with exposed surface rocks, by breaking apart nuclei not usually recognized as parents, but that's just a blind guess.
    This claim interested me as well, so I took it upon myself to research it quickly over the internet.

    All I found was a bunch of sites stating and refuting it. I know that the source of the claim is Kent Hovind, who apparantly got the claim from someone else. I also know that the data originated from the "Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference" volume II (presumably roughly around page 1200), though I wasn't able to find an ISBN number for this.

    Does anyone have a source for the Hovind claim? (like, a specific book or lecture or whatever?)
    I've never heard this argument either. So I doing a little research on the web, yielded a little info.

    In Robert Gentry's book Creation's Tiny Mysteries, he hypothesized that Po-218 short half-life (3.5 minutes) makes it impossible that the element can become entrapped in biotite crystals. The pro and con arguments can be found at these websites. So what does polonium have to do with uranium and thorium? Uranium and thorium may eventually decay to polonium - there's some huge silent "if's" in that statement, see the "con" site for details. However, this is terrestial geology and never mentions the moon.




  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    58
    Guy's - One of the site pointer above had a response to this, basically pointing out that Th-230 is a decay product of U-238, which has a half life of 4.4+ billion years, and that U-236 could be being naturally generated as long as there is a suitable source of slow neutrons.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    31
    On 2001-11-02 07:25, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:
    Guy's - One of the site pointer above had a response to this, basically pointing out that Th-230 is a decay product of U-238, which has a half life of 4.4+ billion years, and that U-236 could be being naturally generated as long as there is a suitable source of slow neutrons.
    I think you misunderstood something. I'm not trying to defend the claim, nor am I trying to refute it--it's very easy to find both defenses and refutations of this claim. What I'm trying to do is to dig a bit deeper. The question was, what was the source of the claim? When was it made? Where did it originate?

    I have partial answers to this, but I still don't know key points, like whether or not it was really Kent Hovind who first proposed this young earth argument, and what the source of the argument really was (was it directly, or indirectly, related to the Fourth Lunar Conference proceedings?)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    58
    "Dr" Kent Hovind
    http://www.geocities.com/odonate/index1.htm
    Shows the "Dr" purchase his degree/Ph.d from Patriot University - a non-accredited degree mill run out of a split level in Colorado.
    Some of the "Dr's" latest claims posted at the "freedom of speech/Daniels Place" bulletin board include :-
    a) The illuminati/New World Order represent Lucifer.
    b) Dinosaurs are not extinct, and will soon be more common.
    c) Lizard aliens, and "good" (bad in disguise) aliens will conspire to enslave humanity.
    d) There were no cold climates pre-flood
    e) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a real document!

    I am keeping this list handy for the next time some creationist claims KH is a "real" scientist!

    To get the BA question in :-
    Was it "V" where Lizard aliens, came to earth disguised as people?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chief Engineer Scott on 2001-12-11 10:23 ]</font>

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    357
    On 2001-12-11 10:07, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:
    "Dr" Kent Hovind
    http://www.geocities.com/odonate/index1.htm
    Shows the "Dr" purchase his degree/Ph.d from Patriot University - a non-accredited degree mill run out of a split level in Colorado.
    Some of the "Dr's" latest claims posted at the "freedom of speech/Daniels Place" bulletin board include :-
    a) The illuminati/New World Order represent Lucifer.
    b) Dinosaurs are not extinct, and will soon be more common.
    c) Lizard aliens, and "good" (bad in disguise) aliens will conspire to enslave humanity.
    d) There were no cold climates pre-flood
    e) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a real document!

    I am keeping this list handy for the next time some creationist claims KH is a "real" scientist!

    To get the BA question in :-
    Was it "V" where Lizard aliens, came to earth disguised as people?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chief Engineer Scott on 2001-12-11 10:23 ]</font>
    Yup.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,046
    On 2001-11-01 06:44, David Hall wrote:
    My favorite one of this type was one I saw long long ago in a book from <u>The Journal of Irreproducible Results</u>. The study went on to show that the average length of words in the English language was decreasing and the average number of words in a sentence was also decreasing. Therefore, sometime around 2050, English sentences should average zero words of zero letters.
    Very late response but a goodie (I think): I saw an example that showed asymptotic growth so that in another fifty years everyone in the world will be an Elvis impersonator. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    164
    Ah, [beep]!

    May I take my anger out on it? Thanks. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    On 2001-12-11 10:07, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:

    a) The illuminati/New World Order represent Lucifer.
    No duh. That was revealed when I was in fifth grade. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

    b) Dinosaurs are not extinct, and will soon be more common.
    I guess that would explain most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    c) Lizard aliens, and "good" (bad in disguise) aliens will conspire to enslave humanity.
    Why can't we just take each other out? It's gonna happen anyway?

    d) There were no cold climates pre-flood
    Right. And those fifteen layers of wool clothes they found on the Iceman found in the Alps were all lightweight and were woven together. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    e) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a real document!
    And about as fragile as a dry leaf in the fall. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

  25. #25
    Guest
    On 2001-10-30 03:39, Hauteden wrote: To T. Edison {light bulb}
    I am not one who can give..........| give E.C. Snyder [assayer]
    who upon seeing the idea? filled the bulb
    Over Here
    with Water and showed THAT to me
    Hauteden
    Along with How to {um} Devine Platinium
    see high ASCII and also Janium a Pl group METAL

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    61
    Very late response but a goodie (I think): I saw an example that showed asymptotic growth so that in another fifty years everyone in the world will be an Elvis impersonator.
    My favorite: Americans do not throw out National Geographics. So in 2 billion years, the accumulated weight of all those magazines stored in garages and closets will cause the entire North American land mass to sink 100'.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Another site worth visiting (got to promote fellow Aussies!) is this:

    http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

    It's "No Answers In Genesis", which got its name from an Australian Creationist site called "Answers In Genesis."

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    700
    &lt;hr>
    d) Moon, claim that Moon contains large amounts of isotopes U236 and Th230, both short lived isotopes.
    &lt;hr>

    Many short lived isotopes exist on earth, but all short lived isotopes with a half life less than 80 million years(which means they would be exhausted in about 4.5 billion years) which exist on earth are created continually by natural means(such as cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere). These short lived isotopes on earth are few an far between. Thus, if these isotopes on the moon are the only ones found, then they are most likely continually created by natural means(I would guess).

    P.S. Thanks so much for bringing up this topic &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">

    &lt;a href="badastronomy.com">Test&lt;/a>

Similar Threads

  1. Help needed
    By joacofab in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-10, 07:23 PM
  2. Help needed
    By darkhat in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-27, 09:29 AM
  3. Help Needed...
    By sidddarthan in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-09, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •