Lying Brainwashing Christians

[Big-P]

Before people think this post is a flame I do realize that not all Christians are like this.

However these people are lying and trying to brainwash children. They should be ashamed of themselves.

http://evolution-facts.org/

I am working on an online paper which will completely and utterly destroy the nonsense and lies that are posted throughout this website. I've started on Chapter 4 the age of the Earth. I've gotten about half way through and they haven't made one valid point yet.

 

[archangel]

Before people think this post is a flame I do realize that not all Christians are like this.

However these people are lying and trying to brainwash children. They should be ashamed of themselves.

http://evolution-facts.org/

I am working on an online paper which will completely and utterly destroy the nonsense and lies that are posted throughout this website. I've started on Chapter 4 the age of the Earth. I've gotten about half way through and they haven't made one valid point yet.

checked out your posted site...they are not "Lying" just giving their opinion...have you not something better to do than bash anothers opinion? Then again ya are probably from the far left and can't stop yourself!... :scratch:

 

[Big-P]

checked out your posted site...they are not "Lying" just giving their opinion...have you not something better to do than bash anothers opinion? Then again ya are probably from the far left and can't stop yourself!... :scratch:

No. They are telling outright lies. I will post some of them here shortly. And if they aren't telling outright lies they are the dumbest people I've ever met. For example. Let me give you one of the points from their chapters real quick. It is their contention that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Now look at this.

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

"The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in] per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it."—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979.

The current distance from the earth to moon is about 385,000 km. Completely ignoring the fact that it might be made up anyway, according to the article, the closest it could ever have been is 18,400 km. That leaves 366,600 km for it to have moved.
At a rate of 4 cm/year (according to the article, might be completely made up)=1 meter every 25 years=1 km every 25,000 years.
So according to the information they provide, the oldest the moon could be is 366,600*25,000, or 9,165,000,000 years old.
Thats a pretty convincing arguement for why its less than 10,000 years old, I guess.

 

[archangel]

No. They are telling outright lies. I will post some of them here shortly. And if they aren't telling outright lies they are the dumbest people I've ever met. For example. Let me give you one of the points from their chapters real quick. It is their contention that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Now look at this.


The current distance from the earth to moon is about 385,000 km. Completely ignoring the fact that it might be made up anyway, according to the article, the closest it could ever have been is 18,400 km. That leaves 366,600 km for it to have moved.
At a rate of 4 cm/year (according to the article, might be completely made up)=1 meter every 25 years=1 km every 25,000 years.
So according to the information they provide, the oldest the moon could be is 366,600*25,000, or 9,165,000,000 years old.
Thats a pretty convincing arguement for why its less than 10,000 years old, I guess.

it's just an opinion...don't get your panties in a wad...geez! :rotflmao:

 

[dmp]

No. They are telling outright lies. I will post some of them here shortly. And if they aren't telling outright lies they are the dumbest people I've ever met. For example. Let me give you one of the points from their chapters real quick. It is their contention that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Now look at this.


The current distance from the earth to moon is about 385,000 km. Completely ignoring the fact that it might be made up anyway, according to the article, the closest it could ever have been is 18,400 km. That leaves 366,600 km for it to have moved.
At a rate of 4 cm/year (according to the article, might be completely made up)=1 meter every 25 years=1 km every 25,000 years.
So according to the information they provide, the oldest the moon could be is 366,600*25,000, or 9,165,000,000 years old.
Thats a pretty convincing arguement for why its less than 10,000 years old, I guess.

I was watching the Discovery Channel when I first heard the moon is moving away from the earth at percisely that rate.

(shrug).

 

[Big-P]

From the Evolution Cruncher Chapter 4:The age of the earth

“1 - STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.”



Source? How is this impossible? We have a claim with absolutely no evidence or reasoning behind it. This is a theme which I suspect will be repeated.



“2 - LARGE STARS—Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.”




Too gigantic for what? Impossibly Big? What does this even mean? You can’t just arbitrarily say something is impossibly big without giving any reason of why it’s too big or what it is too big for. This one goes along with the theme of the first point. Make a claim and provide no evidence to back it up. That’s what I call science



“3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS—Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright O and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayfert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun are emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.”


I will evaluate the veracity of this claim later but how does this prove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old which these people later claim. 50,000 and 300,000 are both larger than 10,000. This tells us nothing.

*Upon further review of the previous topic I have found that red dwarves can last between upwards of hundreds of billions of years since 90% of their life is spent fusing hydrogen to produce helium in high-temperature and high-pressure reactions near the core.


The source for the above information can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star


“4 - BINARY STARS—Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe, because they consist of theoretically "young" and "old" stars circling one another.”


No rational person would conclude that this means anything. Absolute gibberish and nothing more.



“5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.”



In my limited research I have found that Hoyle does in fact not support the Big Bang theory and has proposed his own Steady State theory. He is also a believer in Panspermia and suggests that advanced alien civilizations brought life here to earth. I have yet to find anywhere where he claims that the universe must be youthful. More to come later…



“6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.
"By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979.
Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.


Really? From NASA:
There is no evidence that the size of the sun has changed appreciably over the last 100 million years, because the amount of heat the sun produces at the earth depends on the second power of the solar diameter, all other factors being equal, so a little change on the sun would throw the earth into a global heat wave or ice age.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11805.html

Exposed yet again.



“7 - SOLAR NEUTRINOS—In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with the discovery that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently created sun.”

Well we already know that the sun isn’t shrinking at any rate worthy of noting because I just debunked that with information than NASA but apparently this is a blatant lie as well.
From Wickipedia:

quote:

For some time it was thought that the number of neutrinos produced by the nuclear reactions in the Sun was only a third of the number predicted by theory, a result that was termed the solar neutrino problem. Several neutrino observatories were constructed, including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and Kamiokande to try to measure the solar neutrino flux. It has recently been found that neutrinos have rest mass, and can therefore transform into harder-to-detect varieties of neutrinos while en route from the Sun to Earth in a process known as neutrino oscillation [7]. Thus, measurement and theory have been reconciled.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Solar_neutrino_problem

 

[dmp]

Duplicate Accounts are forbidden, Powerman.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I was watching the Discovery Channel when I first heard the moon is moving away from the earth at percisely that rate.

(shrug).

"you and me baby aint nothin but mammals so let's do it
like they do on the Discovery Cha.."
Sorry, I got carried away.

 

[archangel]

I was watching the Discovery Channel when I first heard the moon is moving away from the earth at percisely that rate.

(shrug).

so I really do not understand this persons argument!

 

[Zhukov]

His point is...

If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

...is inaccurate as it would take the moon some 9 billion years to move 360,000km were it moving at only 4cm a year, assuming his math is correct.

 

[Zhukov]

Yes, the math is fine.

Lunar perigee is 363,105,000 metres. Perigee is when it is closest.

The roche limit, the point at which a celestial body disintegrates due to the gravitational effects of a larger body in close proximity, of the moon is somewhere between 9,495,665 metres and 18,261,459 metres.

We'll use the upper limit.

363,105,000 (perigee) minus 18,261,459 (upper roche limit) = 344,842,541 metres

344,842,541 metres is 34,484,254,100 centimetres

34,484,254,100 centimetres divided by 3.8 centimeters per year (lunar recession) = 9,074,803,711 years.

I got all my numbers from wikipedia.

Therefore the statements...

Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

...is either the result of a gross miscalculation on someone's part, or is just an outright lie.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

whoa

Easy there fella.
My brain is smokin

 

[dmp]

Yes, the math is fine.

Lunar perigee is 363,105,000 metres. Perigee is when it is closest.

The roche limit, the point at which a celestial body disintegrates due to the gravitational effects of a larger body in close proximity, of the moon is somewhere between 9,495,665 metres and 18,261,459 metres.

We'll use the upper limit.

363,105,000 (perigee) minus 18,261,459 (upper roche limit) = 344,842,541 metres

344,842,541 metres is 34,484,254,100 centimetres

34,484,254,100 centimetres divided by 3.8 centimeters per year (lunar recession) = 9,074,803,711 years.

I got all my numbers from wikipedia.

Therefore the statements...



...is either the result of a gross miscalculation on someone's part, or is just an outright lie.

You are assuming the rate of recession is constant. Is the rate constant?

 

[Zhukov]

You are assuming the rate of recession is constant. Is the rate constant?

Actually I'm assuming they're assuming the rate of recession is constant. Also that the density and radii of both the earth and moon are constant. And also that there were no other interfering objects. They don't say otherwise, and I don't know otherwise, so I'm just running the numbers.

 

[dmp]

Actually I'm assuming they're assuming the rate of recession is constant. Also that the density and radii of both the earth and moon are constant. And also that there were no other interfering objects. They don't say otherwise, and I don't know otherwise, so I'm just running the numbers.

Right - gotcha.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yes, the math is fine.

Lunar perigee is 363,105,000 metres. Perigee is when it is closest.

The roche limit, the point at which a celestial body disintegrates due to the gravitational effects of a larger body in close proximity, of the moon is somewhere between 9,495,665 metres and 18,261,459 metres.

We'll use the upper limit.

363,105,000 (perigee) minus 18,261,459 (upper roche limit) = 344,842,541 metres

344,842,541 metres is 34,484,254,100 centimetres

34,484,254,100 centimetres divided by 3.8 centimeters per year (lunar recession) = 9,074,803,711 years.

I got all my numbers from wikipedia.

Therefore the statements...



...is either the result of a gross miscalculation on someone's part, or is just an outright lie.

I'm going to do the Army officer thing now....


"Can I see a Power Point slide with a chart on that?"

 

[Powerman]

You are assuming the rate of recession is constant. Is the rate constant?

You bring up a good point. If you read closely they actually say that the rate was higher earlier. But they don't tell you what the rate is or what the deceleration rate is so you can apply the exact math. But the numbers are off by a factor of 900,000 if you go with the constant speed that we have now. I doubt that the disparity in time velocity would be 900 thousand times larger at any point in this example much less average out to it which is what it would have to do.

 

[Zhukov]

This work?

 

[GotZoom]

This work?

I believe the initial angle of descent for Z is off.

 

[dmp]

You bring up a good point. If you read closely they actually say that the rate was higher earlier. But they don't tell you what the rate is or what the deceleration rate is so you can apply the exact math. But the numbers are off by a factor of 900,000 if you go with the constant speed that we have now. I doubt that the disparity in time velocity would be 900 thousand times larger at any point in this example much less average out to it which is what it would have to do.

...and you assume you know where the moon STARTED in it's orbit, in relation to the earth. Could it be the moon started out only, say, 10ft closer since 'the beginning'?