Latest post of the previous page:
That's what we used to say when viewing the offerings in most RAF airman's messes!Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Hebrews 13:8 KJV
Latest post of the previous page:
That's what we used to say when viewing the offerings in most RAF airman's messes!Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Hebrews 13:8 KJV
How fast is the moon receding?Pahu wrote:As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.
It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.Alan H wrote:How fast is the moon receding?Pahu wrote:As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.
Yes.But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
So, please provide your calculations.Pahu wrote:It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.Alan H wrote:How fast is the moon receding?Pahu wrote:As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.
Pity.Yes.But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.Alan H wrote:So, please provide your calculations.Pahu wrote:It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.Alan H wrote:How fast is the moon receding?
Pity.[/quote]Yes.But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?Pahu wrote:I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.Alan H wrote:So, please provide your calculations.Pahu wrote:
It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.
+1Alan H wrote:It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?Pahu wrote:I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.Alan H wrote:So, please provide your calculations.
My purpose is to share scientific information that disproves evolution. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientists for that information in order to make my point.Dave B wrote:+1Alan H wrote:It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?Pahu wrote:
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.
Pahu, if you cannot support what you say with fact - not faith, hope, belief etc - then it it merely opinion, guesswork, conjecture, or something of that ilk. If you have used an original source - that's a scientist, not a supernatural entity - then it is good manners to credit that source. If that original source is supported by subsequent research it is a good idea to cite that as well in support of your argument.
Happy to condider at theory, even conjecture, from xources honest enough to admit such, but only as a preludevto discussion and argument as to its veracity.
So, make a statement and quote a reliable source or be prepared to defend your ideas and beliefs, with verifiable supporting evidence, when challenged.
Oh, sorry, you guys fon't like your beliefs challenged do you? Nothing to support them outside of your own heads or the writings of those who have the same beliefs?
Fortunately, your second statement demonstrates your first. Science is all about 'quibbling'. It's only by questioning things, finding flaws, refining theories that knowledge progresses. That is, in a nutshell, the scientific process. Simply providing information and accepting it as gospel [sic] gets us no where. It is the willingness to be proven wrong and to be corrected that allows you and I here today punching keys on a keyboard.Pahu wrote:I am not a scientist
...
I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information
Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.I provide links to all my posts. The information in them is confirmed by scientists in the end notes. Here are most of them:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward...
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal...
Seriously? That's your argument. Have you actually tried searching the Internet for anything?If someone is really interested in more information they can probably find it on the internet.
First, show us some logic and evidence...There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.
You realise, surely, that this also applies to yourself?There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.First, show us some logic and evidence...
That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:Now, let's get back to the 'evidence you gave about the moon receding...
Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
Now, just where did I do that? After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.Pahu wrote:Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
How true...There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.Now, just where did I do that?
Done! See above.After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
How true...
You need to read what I say more carefully. I have not rejected any facts. If you think I have, please detail them and where I rejected them.Pahu wrote:Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
I'll repeat myself: You need to read what I say more carefully. If you have trouble understanding what i was saying, please let me know and I'll try to explain it to you again.Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.Now, just where did I do that?
Done! See above.[/quote]No you didn't. In reply to my question:After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
You replied:Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
... followed by a copy and paste from somewhere. I want you to show me you understand what those number mean. Can you do that?That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:
No you didn't. In reply to my question:Alan H wrote:You need to read what I say more carefully. I have not rejected any facts. If you think I have, please detail them and where I rejected them.Pahu wrote:Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
I'll repeat myself: You need to read what I say more carefully. If you have trouble understanding what i was saying, please let me know and I'll try to explain it to you again.Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.Now, just where did I do that?
Done! See above.After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
You replied:Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
... followed by a copy and paste from somewhere. I want you to show me you understand what those number mean. Can you do that?[/quote]That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:
Sorry, you may think so, but it's not in the least bit adequate. How about trying to show me how you'd do the sums to demonstrate your claim?Pahu wrote:I have adequately answered your question.