Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 208 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#47144 - 12/30/12 01:01 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Unfortunately I've not succeeded in getting access to Nigel Henbest's 1991 article in full; nor do I have any up to date info on moon dust. Plenty of other dust, though. smile

I'll see what I can find.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
.
#47145 - 12/30/12 02:14 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The moon dust argument has come and gone and it has been quite telling Paul having it as his signature :-)

The short form of the argument

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html

Errors: faulty assumptions, faulty data, avoidance of data that refutes the position.

What is interesting is that young creationist groups actually distance themselves from this exact argument because they concede it is wrong

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

Quote:

Arguments that should never be used
1.Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
2.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
3.NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
4.There are no beneficial mutations.
5.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
6.Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
7.If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
8.No new species have been produced.
9.Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.


So what does that say Paul, you are at odds with even others who believe and accept young earth creation :-)

I guess their disagreement with you is pretty much for the same reason as science

Quote:

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.


It's called honesty and integrity qualities you could use more of.

Science and young creationist disagreeing with you Paul must be a conspiracy right?


Edited by Orac (12/30/12 03:03 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47146 - 12/30/12 03:32 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
What is interesting is that young creationist groups actually distance themselves from this exact argument because they concede it is wrong


the truth is what's important as far as I can see it.

that may not be what you concern yourself with , but in
order for me to fully believe and trust my logic , the truth
must be the foundation of my logic.

otherwise I reduce myself to the level of the thing's that I disagree with.

Quote:
So what does that say Paul, you are at odds with even others who believe and accept young earth creation


so should I fall in formation with them?
and let them dictate what I can or cannot discuss , that's
just not the way it should be.

Quote:
It's called honesty and integrity qualities you could use more of.


coming from you , orac

that's like the moon telling the sun that it needs to shine
a little bit brighter.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47147 - 12/30/12 04:47 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So let me guess another win for you ... not even your own side believe you :-)

BTW I am interested what have I been dishonest about according to you? I am not even trying at the moment and yet I seem to upset you.



Edited by Orac (12/30/12 06:35 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47148 - 12/30/12 05:04 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
eureka!

I found something on a anti-Creationist web site , that's good
because using the op's info should carry more weight with the op's.

Quote:
The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

I haven't fully read the article yet , it may be explaining
how a equation is meant to be used.

but I thought it was an amazing find , this is the first time
I have been lucky enough to find it.

I tried a different approach this time after searching the logical
search terms , I just typed into google

1 cm of moon dust weighs

and there was a article.

it looks like there will be a lot more moon dust covering the moon
than .75 inches.

but lets wait till I recalculate it using the now assumed weight
of moon dust and my previous calculation.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47149 - 12/30/12 05:46 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
LOL , while re reading my calculation I found an error.


Quote:
each sq meter of the moons surface should have 5521.21 pounds of dust on its surface.

but thats just math and data and things that science ignores these days.

that is some heavy dust , just how heavy is the dust on the moon?

nickel weighs 0.322 lbs per cu inch.

1 sq meter has 1550 sq inches

5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 inches high of solid nickel.


I'm not sure exactly how that happened , I was supposed to be
showing how high solid nickel would stack because I could't find the weight of moon dust.

but I forgot to include the nickle and the result should have been

5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 pounds/sq inch

nickel weighs 0.322 lbs per cu inch.

anyway 3.56 pounds / 0.322 lbs = 11.05 inches of solid nickle.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47150 - 12/30/12 06:08 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
now for my honest estimate of how high the moon dust should be

excluding : compaction due to gravity.
compaction due to electro / mechanical properties of the moon dust.


Quote:
5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 pounds/sq inch


1 (sq inch) = 6.4516 sq centimeters

3.56 pounds sq inch / 6.14516 cm = 0.551 pounds / sq cm

1 pound = 453.592 grams

moon dust weighs 3 grams / cu cm

.55 pounds * 453.592 grams = 250.292 grams per sq cm

250.292 grams sq cm / 3 grams per cu cm = 83.430 cm in height

which is not quite a meter in height

that is the 4.5 billion year accumulation of moon dust.

but there's only apx .75 inches of dust on the moon.

so now I will calculate the height of moon dust that would have
accumulated over only 6000 years.

Quote:
23290 tpy * 6000 years = 139740000 tons of dust total


a tonn = 2000 lbs

279,480,000,000 lbs of dust

the surface area of the moon is 37,964,220,000,000 sq meters

each sq meter of the moons surface should have
0.0073616684341203375177996545168056 pounds of dust on its surface.

1 sq meter has 1550 sq inches

0.0073616684341203375177996545168056 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 4.7494635058840887211610674301971e-6

.0000047494635058840887211610674301971 pounds / sq in

1 (sq inch) = 6.4516 sq centimeters

.0000047494635058840887211610674301971 pounds sq inch / 6.14516 cm = 7.7287873804491481444926860003599e-7 pounds / sq cm

.00000077287873804491481444926860003599 pounds / sq cm

1 pound = 453.592 grams

.00000077287873804491481444926860003599 pounds * 453.592 grams = 3.5057161254726900051567264282752e-4 grams per sq cm

.00035057161254726900051567264282752 grams per sq cm

moon dust weighs 3 grams / cu cm

.00035057161254726900051567264282752 grams per sq cm / 3 grams per cu cm = 1.1685720418242300017189088066667e-4

.00011685720418242300017189088066667 cm in height.

.0001 cm of moon dust accumulation in only 6000 years.

that is my honest estimate of the amount of moon dust accumulation
over a 6000 year period.

and I'm a creationist.

my conclusion:
neither one of my calculations approach the op's or Creations
estimates.
my conclusion
1) the moon is not as old as it is said to be by science.(4.5 billion years old)
2) and it is older than Creation says it is (apx 6000 years old).
3) all this is riding on the assumption that moon dust weighs 3 grams per cu cm
4) and that my calculation method was at least close.

83 cm is a lot more than .75 inches

and

.0001 cm is a lot less than .75 inches



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47151 - 12/30/12 07:10 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Are your figures those of your own collection?


I was really asking about the figures for the in-fall rate. Did you do your own dust collecting?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47152 - 12/30/12 07:18 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
of course I did.

that's how I knew how much moon dust weighs. cool

however , I did use someone else's estimate to do the calculation's

as was in the original post that you pointed to when you replied

Quote:
Unfortunately I've not succeeded in getting access to Nigel Henbest's 1991 article in full


Quote:
Henbest writing in New Scientist in 1991 declares:
“Even though the grains are individually small, they are so numerous in interplanetary space that the Earth sweeps up some 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every year.
Perhaps this is a “safe” compromise!



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47153 - 12/30/12 07:34 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
now , I'm kind of curious as to the method or means that the
3 gram's per cu cm was obtained.

I wonder if I could reverse engineer the 3 grams to match the
.75 inches seen on the moon.

laugh

I will say this common sand found on the earth weighs 3 gram's
per cu cm.

each grain of sand is much larger than the tiny grains
of moon dust , so even if this obviously highly classified data
( the weight of moon dust ) is not made available , I'm almost
certain that a weight approximation can be made by the percentages
of the elements contained in the moon dust , and the air gaps between the grains.

it may turn out to be heavier or lighter , who knows.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47154 - 12/30/12 10:07 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, gentle Readers here I go away for a few days and when I come back I find that Paul is still making ridiculous arguments. Over and over we show him examples of simple observations that can best be explained by the Theory of Evolution, and he keeps claiming that evolution has been disproven. I trust you are keeping tabs on all of the reasons that he gives that evolution has been disproved. So far I am having a problem with my list, since I haven't seen an disproofs. What i have seen over and over in my life has been example after example that, as I said above, can be best explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Some quick examples:

The Linnaean classification system that classifies all life forms into a ranked series of classifications starting with species and proceeding through the following system borrowed from Yahoo Answers.

Originally Posted By: Yahoo Answers
The Linnaean taxonomy hierarchy from top to bottom:
1. domain
2. kingdom
3. phylum
4. class
5. order
6. family
7. genus
8. species
9. subspecies (occasionally used)


All life forms fit into this classification scheme. The simplest explanation for this is that they are ultimately descended from one life form and gained their current diversity through evolution.

Another observation.

When you examine several geological strata you find that there are many fossils in one strata that are not included in other strata. The fossils in older strata, as dated relationally by which strata are buried more deeply or exactly by radiometric methods, tend to be more simple in structure. Of course many of the older fossils show resemblances to the newer ones, as if the newer ones were evolved descendents of the older ones.

An example of not having older and newer fossils intermixed is that there are no fossils of human beings mixed with the fossils of dinosaurs.

And then there is the fact that the older strata have been radiometrically dated to extreme ages, inconsistent with the young earth creation of the book of Genesis. I have a lot of faith in radiometric dating, since the theory that is used to determine the age is the same theory that is used to make hydrogen bombs. It works quite well there, so I don't see how it could be just horribly wrong in determining the age of fossils and the Earth.

There are of course a great many other examples of things that can be most easily explained by the Theory of Evolution. This is very small sample of those observations. So don't be mislead by Paul's refusal to accept any of them and his claims that evolution has been disproven.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#47155 - 12/30/12 10:17 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Bill

I didnt say that there were no fossils found in the different layers of strata.

I said that there are no ( TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ) found in the
different layers of strata.

huffing and puffing and gentile readering about thing's that are
not in question might sound good , but really serves no purpose.

show us a website that shows pictures of transitional fossils

oh and please use the same species as it transitions from one species to another.

ie...

a elephant to a mouse.

but dont just show us a fossil of an elephant
and a fossil of a mouse , we need the ( TRANSITIONAL) fossils
in between.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47157 - 12/30/12 10:49 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
a elephant to a mouse.


All becomes clear, I understand now why you don't believe in evolution.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47158 - 12/30/12 11:12 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
This is not a bad place to start looking for/at transitional fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Cephalopods

Of course, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and humans have been keeping written records for most of that time, there could be contemporaneous accounts capable of rubbishing all this Wiki stuff.

It occurs to me, on reading my last sentence, that there could be readers (gentle/gentile or otherwise) who might suspect that I am being flippant. Such is not the case.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47160 - 12/30/12 11:25 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
that's really sad there Bill.

its nothing like what I would have hoped you could post up
given your intense belief in evolution.

at least the page is honest and doesn't start off
with discriminating rants against Creation.

here's the page's disclaimer.

Quote:
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.


it doesn't say disclaimer but that's what it is.

I would think that the wiki page would be crammed with data
and pictures that link each transition to the transition above it , but its like there's nothing to put in there!

it's like there's no transition's available to put there.

is that the case?

evolution only used fully formed species to show the evolution from species to species , you say that you now understand why
I don't believe in evolution , well your right , I require
some evidence of evolution.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47161 - 12/30/12 11:33 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Of course, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old


lets look at one modern species and see if what you said really hold's water.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47156#Post47156

we all know that these changes seen in dogs took over 650 million years just like evolution says that
it would have taken from goo to dog , right.

but these dog's pictured were bred in only a few thousand years.

how is it that natural selection was not involved in the process.

lets call this event in history the
dog breed explosion.

how did it occur?

was it natural selection , no.

it was intelligent design.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47162 - 12/30/12 11:48 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
Bill

I didnt say that there were no fossils found in the different layers of strata.

I said that there are no ( TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ) found in the
different layers of strata.

huffing and puffing and gentile readering about thing's that are
not in question might sound good , but really serves no purpose.

show us a website that shows pictures of transitional fossils

oh and please use the same species as it transitions from one species to another.

ie...

a elephant to a mouse.

but dont just show us a fossil of an elephant
and a fossil of a mouse , we need the ( TRANSITIONAL) fossils
in between.






Well, gentle Readers, there Paul goes again. Trying to distract attention from what I said by getting me to join in a discussion of what he said or didn't say. He doesn't pay any attention to what I said, which was that the facts are most easily explained by evolution. He doesn't address that, he just says that he wants intermediate species. It really doesn't matter to me that some lines don't show the intermediate species, the fact that they come and go and there is an ancestral resemblance between them still makes a good case for evolution.

There are of course many cases where intermediate species have been found, but of course that is of no interest to Paul and other creationists, so they will continue to ignore them.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#47163 - 12/30/12 11:55 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
There are of course many cases where intermediate species have been found, but of course that is of no interest to Paul


the evolutionist must be evolving , gentile readers...LOL

they are displaying the ability of knowing what other's interest are.

in fact Bill is wrong as I have repeatedly shown that I am
interested , he is only saying that ( I suppose ) because
he cannot find anything to bring to show and tell.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47164 - 12/30/12 11:55 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
these dog breed's are modern.
however they clearly represent what evolution should easily
be capable of producing , as dog breeding has produced , pictured above.


Paul, manifestly that is not the strongest argument you have produced to date.

If the theory of evolution is correct, survival of the fittest is the major driving force.

There is no way that one could logically suggest that modern trends in dog breading might mirror this. In fact many of the features currently favoured in popular breeds run contrary to anything that would be selected for in the wild.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47165 - 12/30/12 11:59 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
it was intelligent design.


and it looks a lot like the cambrian explosion look's.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.