The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Che Guava]

probably the funniest april fool's joke I have ever read....

 

[Rad Chris]

Oh it gets better! Our freind Mr Hovind fell for it.

 

[Che Guava]

Oh it gets better! Our freind Mr Hovind fell for it.

Is there a smilie for 'laughing so hard it's cutting the flow of oxygen to my brain?"

If there is such a thing as negative credibility, this guy is making a good run for it...

 

[warpus]

There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today.

haha.. oh man

no further comment necessary.

 

[Perfection]

This Prof. said "Billions of years ago all the dirt in the universe was in this 1 bitty tiny dot, and it was spinning real fast".

This seems to me to be a nonconventonal claim (I've never heard of it, and quick wikiing it and googling it finds no information). I'd like to see some mainstream sources that say that this is correct.

It seems to me Hovind is putting words into the mouths of Big Bang theoreists and then refuting it. An underhanded and fallacious arguing methodology.

 

[El_Machinae]

Diablo - I think I see one of the issues you might be experiencing with carbon dating.

Would you agree that soil DEEP in the ground is older than soil near the surface? Would you agree that fossils deep down in the ground would be older than fossils near the surface (in the same area)?

For example, if I dig down, and find a fossil, and then dig deeper and find another fossil - would you accept that the second fossil was likely older?

 

[Samson]

This seems to me to be a nonconventonal claim (I've never heard of it, and quick wikiing it and googling it finds no information). I'd like to see some mainstream sources that say that this is correct.

It seems to me Hovind is putting words into the mouths of Big Bang theoreists and then refuting it. An underhanded and fallacious arguing methodology.

It certainly looks that way. The question then becomes, why are most galaxies rotating the same way then?

 

[Perfection]

It certainly looks that way. The question then becomes, why are most galaxies rotating the same way then?

Are they even rotating in the same way? I'm not sure of the validity of that statement.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What's "rotating in the same way", anyway? Galaxies come in all sorts of angles (take a look at any deep space photo if you don't believe me) - how do I know that an apparently normally spinning one isn't one spinning in the other direction, just upside down?

I can, incidentally, confirm that a net rotation of the universe at large is not part of standard theory.

 

[Rad Chris]

I must be misunderstanding what Kent is saying about galaxies spinning the wrong way, it seems to be such on obviously wrong statement. Guess what! If you look at galaxies from the other side then they are suddenly spinning the opposite way, so how can there be a 'right' way to spin in the first place since its all arbitrary.

 

[Samson]

What's "rotating in the same way", anyway? Galaxies come in all sorts of angles (take a look at any deep space photo if you don't believe me) - how do I know that an apparently normally spinning one isn't one spinning in the other direction, just upside down?

Man my geometry (is that the right branch?) is rubish. I think I can visulise it, there can be no definition of clockwise or anticlockwise if you do not have a distinction between the 2 "faces" of the disk. Sorry for being stupid, I shall blame it on sitting through 2 hours of Ken's ramblings
[EDIT]

I must be misunderstanding what Kent is saying about galaxies spinning the wrong way

No, I think Ken is the one who is (willfully?) misunderstanding.

 

[Perfection]

I must be misunderstanding what Kent is saying about galaxies spinning the wrong way, it seems to be such on obviously wrong statement. Guess what! If you look at galaxies from the other side then they are suddenly spinning the opposite way, so how can there be a 'right' way to spin in the first place since its all arbitrary.

Well, I think what he is implying is that there is a distinct pattern of alignment when looked at from a single frame (like for example looking at a "sheet" of galaxies and seeing that from your reference frame they all go counterclockwise). I see no truthfulness to this implication, though.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of galaxies spun "in the same direction", much like it doesn't surprise me that most of the planets in our solar system lie on the same plane.

But.. Galaxies form clusters, right.. and some of them might lie on the same plane, but I can't imagine that all of them do. So does "spinning in the same direction" even make sense?

 

[The Last Conformist]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths8.html

This page gives two references for it's claims about mammoth radiocarbon dates:

N. A. Dubrovo et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630.
The only other webpage that knows of this piece are creationist sites ...

Valentina V. Ukraintseva, Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13.
This, OTOH, undeniably is a genuine paper. Unfortunately, it's not available to me online, but luckily this particular claim is already in the talk.origins list of creationist claims. Given that this piece, unlike diablodelmar's, managed to put the reference to Ukraintseva's paper in the right place, I'm more inclined to believe its reporting of contents.

 

[Perfection]

Well, it appears to me that there is supposed to be overall consistancy (throughout the universe, not limited by clusters and superclusters), so local consistancy doesn't really matter.

Still, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that there is even local consistancy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If all galaxies were rotating in the same direction, the universe at large would have a net angular momentum. This isn't compatible with standard models.

In any case, what's Hovind's point? Or has he come to believe that the mere exercise of his jaw musculature constitutes evidence?

 

[Perfection]

This page gives two references for it's claims about mammoth radiocarbon dates:

N. A. Dubrovo et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630.
The only other webpage that knows of this piece are creationist sites ...

Valentina V. Ukraintseva, Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13.
This, OTOH, undeniably is a genuine paper. Unfortunately, it's not available to me online, but luckily this particular claim is already in the talk.origins list of creationist claims. Given that this piece, unlike diablodelmar's, managed to put the reference to Ukraintseva's paper in the right place, I'm more inclined to believe its reporting of contents.

How the heck did you find those referrences on thier webpage?

Edit: Congrats on the 25,000!

 

[El_Machinae]

If galaxies all spin the same direction, why don't Hydrogen atoms? Unless, of course, all the theory and data we glean from NMR is wrong?

It strikes me that they'd follow the same principals.

 

[diablodelmar]

And where would we find such a debate..?

Google it. I'm sure you'll be able to find one.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How the heck did you find those referrences on thier webpage?

Click on the little raised "150" near the end.

Edit: Congrats on the 25,000!

25,002

@El_Mac: Hydrogen atoms change their spin directions fairly often, galaxies never. They do occasionally lose rotational cohesion in encounters with other galaxies.