The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[The Last Conformist]

TLC - shouldn't that mean that the Earth or Moon were formed by supernovae 4 billion years ago? That means they must have come from the same supernova, yes?

No, and I can't imagine why you'd think that.

 

[ironduck]

I was refering to salt levels of the sea...

I saw that, I corrected it. Anyway, read the link before you deny it.

 

[diablodelmar]

They're mostly 3.5-4.5 Ga old.

ok then. You also must know that the 4cm retraction from the earth would have been more a long time ago. This means that, Even if the moon started very close to the earth, it would only have taken (maximum - allowing generous changes in favour of evo once again) 1 billion years to get where it is presently. Hardly the 3.5 billion that the radiometric "dating" has us believe and definitly not 6 billion odd needed for evolution.

 

[diablodelmar]

I saw that, I corrected it. Anyway, read the link before you deny it.

er...I did though...? In case you didn't read it yourself its a very short entry (which says something about its reliablility).

 

[El_Machinae]

No, and I can't imagine why you'd think that.

Your problem is that you lack imagination for the plebians. Don't you remember not knowing everything about this topic?

If the moon is 4.5 Ga old, then that's when it was formed ... wasn't it?

 

[The Last Conformist]

ok then. You also must know that the 4cm retraction from the earth would have been more a long time ago. This means that, Even if the moon started very close to the earth, it would only have taken 1 billion years to get where it is presently. Hardly the 6 billion odd needed for evolution.

Why on earth would you think that six billion years are needed for evolution?

Oh, and please show how you arrived at the figure of 1 billion to reach the present separation. I've got some bets going on specifically which errors you commited.

 

[diablodelmar]

i'm starting to feel very alone

 

[diablodelmar]

Why on earth would you think that six billion years are needed for evolution?

Oh, and please show how you arrived at the figure of 1 billion to reach the present separation. I've got some bets going on specifically which errors you commited.

go on then! What errors did I make? And also you said yourself that the earth was 6 billion years old (ive heard evolutionists claim even longer).

 

[El_Machinae]

Just tell us why you think the moon should have only taken 1 billion years to get where it is, first.

 

[diablodelmar]

Just tell us why you think the moon should have only taken 1 billion years to get where it is, first.

My source is Refuting evolution by Dr. Jonathon Safarti, Ph.D. (who was it that demanded to know my sources?)

 

[ironduck]

er...I did though...? In case you didn't read it yourself its a very short entry (which says something about its reliablility).

I picked that link for you because it was short and to the point. When people have linked long texts to you you have completely ignored their posts.

The link refutes your claim because your claim is based on flawed assumptions. Do you see that?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Your problem is that you lack imagination for the plebians. Don't you remember not knowing everything about this topic?

I do, but that doesn't give me the ability to read your mind and figure out how you reached a particular weird conclusion.

If the moon is 4.5 Ga old, then that's when it was formed ... wasn't it?

Somewhat by definition, yes. The Moon formed about 4.5 years ago, from the debris blasted into orbit after the proto-Earth was hit by a roughly Mars-sized planetoid (or this is our best current hypothesis, at any rate). This has precious little to do with supernovae, however, which are gargantuan stellar explosions.

You may be confusing the formation of the moon with the formation of the heavy nuclei it contains, I suppose - these did indeed form in supernovae, long, long before the earth even started to assemble. But the ages we measure of lunar rocks are the ages of the rocks, not the component atoms. This is why radiometric dating works, by the way - the relative proportions of mother and daughter nucleids is reset when the rocks form out of magma.

 

[diablodelmar]

Supernovas leads me to arguement no. 4:

Supernovas
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star (for those that don't know) - the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. Supernova remnents (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) SNRs, and few moderatly old ones (stage 2) SNRs in our galaxy, or in its satellite galaxies (the magelleanic clouds). This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not been around long enough to have wide supernova expansion.

 

[diablodelmar]

I picked that link for you because it was short and to the point. When people have linked long texts to you you have completely ignored their posts.

The link refutes your claim because your claim is based on flawed assumptions. Do you see that?

eerrr, no...

show me a longer link then please and I will read it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

go on then! What errors did I make?

I can't point out your errors without seeing your calculations.

Well, I can actually point out one with some confidence; you claimed the rate of separation can only have been higher in the past. Apart from being flat-out wrong, it would seem to imply you assume the rate depends only on distance.

And also you said yourself that the earth was 6 billion years old

No, I did not. I said the Earth is about 4.5 Ga old.

 

[ironduck]

Well, I found the AiG page diablo is copypasting from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

 

[The Last Conformist]

Supernovas leads me to arguement no. 4:

Supernovas
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star (for those that don't know) - the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. Supernova remnents (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) SNRs, and few moderatly old ones (stage 2) SNRs in our galaxy, or in its satellite galaxies (the magelleanic clouds). This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not been around long enough to have wide supernova expansion.

Not so.

Am I the only one getting the impression that diablodelmar is gonna make us post the entirety of t.o's list sooner or later?

 

[diablodelmar]

I can't point out your errors without seeing your calculations.

Well, I can actually point out one with some confidence; you claimed the rate of separation can only have been higher in the past. Apart from being flat-out wrong, it would seem to imply you assume the rate depends only on distance.
No, I did not. I said the Earth is about 4.5 Ga old.

Well some scientists have.

Also, what you said about rate is also flat-out wrong. And you aren't going to see any calculations because I didn't do any.

 

[diablodelmar]

Well, I found the AiG page diablo is copypasting from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

I am not copying and pasting!

How can you say that when you yourself are only throwing links at me?

You did find a good link though - read it because its written by the guy whos book I am reading and he has sound arguements.

 

[El_Machinae]

But the ages we measure of lunar rocks are the ages of the rocks, not the component atoms. This is why radiometric dating works, by the way - the relative proportions of mother and daughter nucleids is reset when the rocks form out of magma.

Thanks! I get it now, kinda. Not fully, of course (like how you know much 'original' radiation was in the mother vs. daughter nuclei).

Regarding speed of the moon leaving the Earth. Wouldn't it have been faster while closer in, then reduced to a lower speed (of moving away) in the middle, and then is currently speeding up (in how fast it's moving away)?