Latest dumbshit creationist (May 9, 2008)

[Darth Wong]

How the hell do one explain the presence of tailbones in our asses without resorting to evolution..i really do wonder why God put them there..

My favourite is the existence of sea-dwellers who need air to breathe. No ID proponent or creationist has ever explained to me why an intelligent designer would create such a thing, unless he was deranged or sadistic.

[Kitsune]

How the hell do one explain the presence of tailbones in our asses without resorting to evolution..i really do wonder why God put them there..

God works in mysterious ways is what I usually get.....

[Darth Wong]

How the hell do one explain the presence of tailbones in our asses without resorting to evolution..i really do wonder why God put them there..

God works in mysterious ways is what I usually get.....

In other words, "I have no answer but I must speak".

[Ender]

You know, this gravity thing is really bothering me. It is just such a fucking bizarre thing to say. I did a google search about it - nothing. Hit up a number of creationist sites about it - nothing. I keep turning it over in my mind, it doesn't even make sense from the POV that creationism is right - 6000 years ago gravity would have been nearly 9 times what it is now. I can't see how it ties in with the biblical account at all - we don't know how gravity is related to the other fundamental forces so you can't claim it implies anything. In fact it makes it harder for the YECs because they believe that the oceans were suspended above the earth.

EDIT: I suppose that if you had a far greater gravitational constant you could have a greater speed of light without having to explain how stars are not still just nebulae. And if you didn't understand the difference between weight and mass you could think it didn't change the issues with conservation of energy or Newton's second law. I'm spending too much time on this, aren't I? /EDIT.

About the only thing I can think of is that he fucked up and meant to say the strength of gravity doubles every 700 years. That would allow for a young universe. As it is, reduce the distance between earth and the magellenic cloud by a factor of 2 million (~ difference between 13.7 billion and 6000) and the tidal forces of the small galaxy would have torn apart our solar system inside a year. Weaken gravity and I suppose it would last longer (I didn't run any numbers) allowing for a 6000 year old world without requiring an explanation as to why we are not all dead. Of course, we would have died from not having a sun since the weaker gravity means we wouldn't stay in orbit

But I mean jesus, gravity having a half-life is such an out there claim even for a YEC. And he gave it such a specific value too. I almost want to know more so I can see how far down the rabbit hole this guy is.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The really sad thing is that creationists are ageless: you really can't tell the 50 year old ones from the 15 year old ones, because their thinking has become calcified. All they do is repeat the same "talking points": something which requires neither skill or maturity.

They're probably part snail, clearly mutants. There should be some kind of act the requires these mutants to register with a government body to help regulate them.

[Wyrm]

Ender
Gravity halving in strength every 700 years would mean that 6000 years ago, gravity would be 380 times today's value.

I can't wait to hear what this halflife gravity shit is all about. Especially since, at 360 times normal gravity, the pressure inside the sun would have 360 solar masses bearing down on it. So, to compensate, the Sun would have to produce energy much faster in order to support its own weight. It would have to be 11 billion times brighter than it is today. Adam would need some serious sunscreen.

Not only that, the Sun is brighter because of its mass, but does NOT have the additional fuel supply that a more massive star (ie, one that is truly 380 times more massive) would have. At best, the Sun would only have 10 times initial availible reserves (due to the fact the fusion core of the sun would involve its entirety), this means that it has 1/38 th the lifetime of a star that is really 380 times more massive than the sun, which happens to be a mere 4066/38 = 107 years.

Although the mass-lifetime relationship would utterly break down at these masses, I think its clear that Earth would be in serious trouble, especially considering that the Sun would probably be more accurately described by the supergiant star model than the dwarf star model — which would imply supernova.

[Kitsune]

I wanted to add that the person who told me all those years ago also claimed to work for NASA.....I am hoping as a Janitor

[Ender]

Ender
Gravity halving in strength every 700 years would mean that 6000 years ago, gravity would be 380 times today's value.

Shit, you are right, It would have been 8.57 half-lives, not a difference of 8.57.

I can't wait to hear what this halflife gravity shit is all about. Especially since, at 360 times normal gravity, the pressure inside the sun would have 360 solar masses bearing down on it. So, to compensate, the Sun would have to produce energy much faster in order to support its own weight. It would have to be 11 billion times brighter than it is today. Adam would need some serious sunscreen.

Not only that, the Sun is brighter because of its mass, but does NOT have the additional fuel supply that a more massive star (ie, one that is truly 380 times more massive) would have. At best, the Sun would only have 10 times initial availible reserves (due to the fact the fusion core of the sun would involve its entirety), this means that it has 1/38 th the lifetime of a star that is really 380 times more massive than the sun, which happens to be a mere 4066/38 = 107 years.

Although the mass-lifetime relationship would utterly break down at these masses, I think its clear that Earth would be in serious trouble, especially considering that the Sun would probably be more accurately described by the supergiant star model than the dwarf star model — which would imply supernova.

I know, thats what is bothering me about this. I expect a certain level of willful ignorance and stupidity from some people (e.g. YECs). I despair at the lack of mental capacity of those who don't understand basic kinematics (e.g. SFJ trolls). This however, is so damn out there I can't think of much that rivals it. Usually this kind of thing is accompanied by full on tinfoil hattedness, the kind where you feel bad for the guy because he has so many issues that this is the best he can do. But that isn't there with this chump. I'm at a loss.

[Patrick Degan]

Ender
Gravity halving in strength every 700 years would mean that 6000 years ago, gravity would be 380 times today's value.

I can't wait to hear what this halflife gravity shit is all about. Especially since, at 360 times normal gravity, the pressure inside the sun would have 360 solar masses bearing down on it. So, to compensate, the Sun would have to produce energy much faster in order to support its own weight. It would have to be 11 billion times brighter than it is today. Adam would need some serious sunscreen.

Not only that, the Sun is brighter because of its mass, but does NOT have the additional fuel supply that a more massive star (ie, one that is truly 380 times more massive) would have. At best, the Sun would only have 10 times initial availible reserves (due to the fact the fusion core of the sun would involve its entirety), this means that it has 1/38 th the lifetime of a star that is really 380 times more massive than the sun, which happens to be a mere 4066/38 = 107 years.

Although the mass-lifetime relationship would utterly break down at these masses, I think its clear that Earth would be in serious trouble, especially considering that the Sun would probably be more accurately described by the supergiant star model than the dwarf star model — which would imply supernova.

Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute... Gravity half-life?!?!

Who the fuck's writing their material? Brannon Braga?

[Aquatain]

This is not my strong suit, but as far as i have seen the people behind intelligent design doesnt say mutations don't happen, only that they are very rare.

Wouldn't the acknologement that mutation exist, in whatever form shot down the entire premise of intelligent design?

[Rye]

No, the whole crux of intelligent design is that there are living structures that mutation and selection can't account for because they're too complicated, rely on other also-specialised parts, etc. Well, the crux is that and the evangelical funding.

[CubicleGestapo]

I did my own google search and I came across this statement on a creationist site: "VI. Half-life of the Earth's Magnetic Energy is 700 Years". So my guess here is this writer is bungling his own copy/paste arguments.

Here's the related section with link following.

VI. Half-life of the Earth's Magnetic Energy is 700 Years.

To evaluate the magnetic moment of the earth requires the reduction of a tremendous amount of worldwide data. The data from scores of magnetic observatories around the world are collected for at least a year's continuous measurements. These data are reduced through an elaborate mathematical process to arrive at one value and direction for the earth's magnetic moment for that year. The famous mathematician and physicist, Gauss, developed the mathematics and the instrumentation, gathered the worldwide data, and made the first evaluation in 1885. Since then there have been additional evaluations every few years. We now have 130 years of actual data.

A computer analysis of these data has shown that the decay is an exponential one, as expected from the physics, and that the half-life of the magnetic moment is 1400 years. Because the energy is proportional to the square of the magnetic moment, the half-life of the magnetic energy is only half of this time, namely 700 years. This is perhaps the most meaningful value, 700-year half-life for the energy, because the energy supply is the most fundamental quantity.

link: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... view&ID=63

The argument again seems to include the assumption that the earth's magnetic field does not reverse (and is uniform)

[Darth Wong]

That icr.org guy thinks that there's a fixed amount of "magnetic energy" which is being slowly bled out to make the Earth's magnetic field? Is he on drugs or something? It's amazing how icr.org posts these completely absurd articles with made-up physics and expects people to take them seriously.

[Kitsune]

That icr.org guy thinks that there's a fixed amount of "magnetic energy" which is being slowly bled out to make the Earth's magnetic field? Is he on drugs or something? It's amazing how icr.org posts these completely absurd articles with made-up physics and expects people to take them seriously.

People do though, that is the problem.....

[wautd]

The really sad thing is that creationists are ageless: you really can't tell the 50 year old ones from the 15 year old ones, because their thinking has become calcified. All they do is repeat the same "talking points": something which requires neither skill or maturity.

I think its all about maturity. Their mind never passed childhood

[Zixinus]

I wonder whether some programmer would take a text-recognition software, the talking-origins database of misconceptions and make a bot that automatically finds the usual cookie cutter arguments and replies with the help of the database.

Who the fuck's writing their material? Brannon Braga?

No, no, no. The correct question is: What the hell is he smoking? Because it must be strong as hell.

[Kanastrous]

I'm reading an interesting book right now, "Kluge," about the development and function of the human brain.

I wish people in the ID community, would read it. It's basic enough for me, it's probably basic enough for them.

[Ted C]

That icr.org guy thinks that there's a fixed amount of "magnetic energy" which is being slowly bled out to make the Earth's magnetic field? Is he on drugs or something? It's amazing how icr.org posts these completely absurd articles with made-up physics and expects people to take them seriously.

Well, it's not like they're trying to convince qualified scientists. They're really preaching to the choir, targeting church people who aren't educated in the relevant science and doing their best KEEP them uneducated.

[Wyrm]

Maybe this idiot is thinking people stick to the earth because of its magnetic field. Therefore, less magnetism = less gravity.

This is "physics" you get in kids' cartoons, which I could dismantle at the time.

[starslayer]

About the only thing I can think of is that he fucked up and meant to say the strength of gravity doubles every 700 years. That would allow for a young universe. As it is, reduce the distance between earth and the magellenic cloud by a factor of 2 million (~ difference between 13.7 billion and 6000) and the tidal forces of the small galaxy would have torn apart our solar system inside a year. Weaken gravity and I suppose it would last longer (I didn't run any numbers) allowing for a 6000 year old world without requiring an explanation as to why we are not all dead. Of course, we would have died from not having a sun since the weaker gravity means we wouldn't stay in orbit

Eh? How are you getting that? I know galactic tidal forces can be strong, but I didn't think they could be that strong.

Maybe this idiot is thinking people stick to the earth because of its magnetic field. Therefore, less magnetism = less gravity.

You know, that is a pretty funny delusion, because wouldn't such a strong magnetic field actually cause us to levitate, rather than stick to the surface? Unless I've got my field directions messed up here, we have successfully levitated a frog using a B-field...

[Darth Wong]

About the only thing I can think of is that he fucked up and meant to say the strength of gravity doubles every 700 years. That would allow for a young universe. As it is, reduce the distance between earth and the magellenic cloud by a factor of 2 million (~ difference between 13.7 billion and 6000) and the tidal forces of the small galaxy would have torn apart our solar system inside a year. Weaken gravity and I suppose it would last longer (I didn't run any numbers) allowing for a 6000 year old world without requiring an explanation as to why we are not all dead. Of course, we would have died from not having a sun since the weaker gravity means we wouldn't stay in orbit

Eh? How are you getting that? I know galactic tidal forces can be strong, but I didn't think they could be that strong.

According to Young Earth Creationism, the universe is only 6000 years old. If it were only 6000 years old, then things that are very far way today must have been much closer then. Packing that much more mass/energy very close together would dramatically increase the gravitational forces.

Maybe this idiot is thinking people stick to the earth because of its magnetic field. Therefore, less magnetism = less gravity.

You know, that is a pretty funny delusion, because wouldn't such a strong magnetic field actually cause us to levitate, rather than stick to the surface? Unless I've got my field directions messed up here, we have successfully levitated a frog using a B-field...

You could increase the Earth's magnetic field a hundredfold and we won't levitate. You wouldn't even levitate a frog, despite its increased water content. The effect people use in frog levitation is very weak, and only works because the frogs are mostly water, very light, and very close to a very powerful magnet.

[starslayer]

Ah, thanks for the answers Wong. And yes, I realize that levitating a frog requires a very strong magnet, about 10 T. IIRC, to levitate a human requires a field of about 50-100 T (ridiculously strong). The Earth's field is a few tens of microteslas at the surface. However, if we are positing that the Earth's field is actually strong enough to do something to us, as this dumbass may be, what would the effect be? Or, is the field gradient large enough to do anything at all, at any strength?

[Wyrm]

starslayer
These idiots don't know shit about dimagnetism. It's ferromagnetism they're familiar with, as it's orders of magnitude stronger. They see soft iron stick to magnets regardless of their orientation, so they think, if the magnet is strong enough, anything will stick to it. They don't understand that magnetism is actually a very complicated effect, as most subjects in condensed matter physics tend to be; they see attraction and think they've seen the entire interaction in its essence.

It's like that Dangermouse episode where the badguy puts a brake at the North pole to kill the earth's gravitational field by stopping its rotation. Not only is the setup unworkable (as is Dangermouse's solution), but the effect the badguy intends to kill has the opposite effect for our propensity to stick to the earth.

Then again, he was trying to kill the earth's gravitational field for some unknown reason (I dimly remember it was to make a killing selling magnetic shoes — yeah, good luck with that). Even when I watched it as a youngun', I was thinking, "There is so much wrong with this badguy's plan I don't even know where to start!" At the time, I had at best a high-school level grasp of the basic concepts. Creationist tripe is about the same level.