Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Veovis · 07-23-2003, 12:53 PM

I found this review of Darwin's Demise on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...stomer-reviews

Quote:

This book is one that disproves Darwinism with evidence - not disproving Darwinism through lack of evidence. The book removes all doubt that Creation is the only possible belief system. For example, the sun is constantly deteriorating, right? Well millions of years ago the sun would have been so large and would omit too much heat for life to evolve. This book is worth your time - for all ages, creeds, people (especially if you have an athiest friend). =-)

Really, someone should introduce this poor man to Mira, the pulsating variable star. Mira dramatically expands and contracts on a regular 11 month cycle. It's dimmer when expanded and brighter when contracted. Now, granted the sun is not on such a dramatic expansion/contraction cycle, but assuming that the sun is contracting at a constant rate is kinda naive. It could have just as easily been contracting at a faster rate in the past until the expanding force of the fusion came closer to the contracting force of gravity. Honestly, what is happening to our society?

It's kinda funny because my very Christian math teacher brought this up last year when he was trying to witness instead of teaching geometry. It makes you wonder if this is standard creationist propaganda.

Duvenoy · 07-23-2003, 01:04 PM

Yeah, pretty much typical. It pops up here now and then, gets hammered on, then goes away.

I'm not sure, but I think AiG has this on their arguments not to use list.

Talk origins has a page on it, thourghly debunking it.

doov

Undercurrent · 07-23-2003, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veovis
It makes you wonder if this is standard creationist propaganda.

Yes, it is very standard, very rebutted, very silly, and the rank and file very much don't give a fuck. You know, the usual.

I do think the "deteriorating" rather than "shrinking" is new. Creationists try to turn every change of any kind into some sort of moral decay.

Jayjay · 07-23-2003, 01:12 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the contracting Sun argument traces back to late 19th century when it was thought that Sun was fueled by gravitational pressure. Naturally, this would require Sun to shrink rather rapidly and thus set an upper limit to the age of the Earth. I don't think the original argument had anything to do with observed fluctuations in sunlight (though of course modern creationists might have added this post hoc rationalization).

This kind of recycling of outdated scientific hypotheses and theories is very characteristic of creationist (and other pseudoscience) argumentation. Just look at how creationists are still clinging to the uniformitarian/catastrophist feud that raged about 200 years ago as if it's all happening today...

Tim Thompson · 07-23-2003, 04:15 PM

The creationist "shrinking sun" argument has its roots in a conference proceeeding which appeared as an abstract, but was later withdrawn and not published, when the authors realized they were wrong. Not exactly great "scholarship", but par for the creationist course, I guess. See my more detailed Response to the Shrinking Sun Argument, and Dave Matson's refutation, from our own Internet Infidels Library.

And, by the way, did he really say "omit too much energy"? That looks par for the creationist course too!

Valentine Pontifex · 07-23-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Thompson
The creationist "shrinking sun" argument has its roots in a conference proceeeding which appeared as an abstract, but was later withdrawn and not published, when the authors realized they were wrong. Not exactly great "scholarship", but par for the creationist course, I guess. See my more detailed Response to the Shrinking Sun Argument, and Dave Matson's refutation, from our own Internet Infidels Library.

And, by the way, did he really say "omit too much energy"? That looks par for the creationist course too!

The T.O. Archive has several relevent documents for creationism and astronomy including some of which were authored by Tim at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#astro

In particular, the Solar FAQ the shrinking argument here.

Dave Matson's refutation is at the T.O. Archive as well here.

Valentine Pontifex · 07-23-2003, 06:15 PM

There is a detailed response to the shrinking sun:
The Legend of the Shrinking Sun- A Case Study Comparing Professional Science
and "Creation Science" in Action by Howard J. Van Till.

I got the URL from a feedback response from the April 2003 Feedback Page of the T.O. Archive by Chris Stassen.

RBH · 07-23-2003, 08:04 PM

I particularly liked Van Till's phrase "creationist folk science" to characterize the urban legends propagated as fact by the ICR and its ilk.

RBH

Albion · 07-23-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

And, by the way, did he really say "omit too much energy"? That looks par for the creationist course too!

Honestly, are these people for real? They come across as absolute caricatures.

Worldtraveller · 08-08-2003, 03:11 AM

After reading the argument. I believe Jayjay is correct, in that the gravitational contraction was thought to be the source of the sun's energy.

I remember doing a basic ballbark calculation, using the Stephan-Boltzman relationship (I think) and that indeed would point to a young earth. And here's where science really shines over non-scientific religio mumbojumbo bunk: the scientists actually rejected the theory!! [fundie] See, they were wrong! Creationism is right! There is a God! Charles Darwin was wrong! etc. etc. [/fundie]

Fundies/YEC/Idiots just can't grasp the concept of an incorrect hypothesis, and "back to the drawing board" mentality. :banghead:

Cheers,
Lane

07-23-2003, 01:12 PM	#4
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	Re: Contracting Sun = Young Earth? If I'm not mistaken, the contracting Sun argument traces back to late 19th century when it was thought that Sun was fueled by gravitational pressure. Naturally, this would require Sun to shrink rather rapidly and thus set an upper limit to the age of the Earth. I don't think the original argument had anything to do with observed fluctuations in sunlight (though of course modern creationists might have added this post hoc rationalization). This kind of recycling of outdated scientific hypotheses and theories is very characteristic of creationist (and other pseudoscience) argumentation. Just look at how creationists are still clinging to the uniformitarian/catastrophist feud that raged about 200 years ago as if it's all happening today...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2003, 01:04 PM	#2
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Yeah, pretty much typical. It pops up here now and then, gets hammered on, then goes away. I'm not sure, but I think AiG has this on their arguments not to use list. Talk origins has a page on it, thourghly debunking it. doov

07-23-2003, 04:15 PM	#5
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	The creationist "shrinking sun" argument has its roots in a conference proceeeding which appeared as an abstract, but was later withdrawn and not published, when the authors realized they were wrong. Not exactly great "scholarship", but par for the creationist course, I guess. See my more detailed Response to the Shrinking Sun Argument, and Dave Matson's refutation, from our own Internet Infidels Library. And, by the way, did he really say "omit too much energy"? That looks par for the creationist course too!

07-23-2003, 06:15 PM	#7
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	There is a detailed response to the shrinking sun: The Legend of the Shrinking Sun- A Case Study Comparing Professional Science and "Creation Science" in Action by Howard J. Van Till. I got the URL from a feedback response from the April 2003 Feedback Page of the T.O. Archive by Chris Stassen.

07-23-2003, 08:04 PM	#8
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	I particularly liked Van Till's phrase "creationist folk science" to characterize the urban legends propagated as fact by the ICR and its ilk. RBH

08-08-2003, 03:11 AM	#10
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	After reading the argument. I believe Jayjay is correct, in that the gravitational contraction was thought to be the source of the sun's energy. I remember doing a basic ballbark calculation, using the Stephan-Boltzman relationship (I think) and that indeed would point to a young earth. And here's where science really shines over non-scientific religio mumbojumbo bunk: the scientists actually rejected the theory!! [fundie] See, they were wrong! Creationism is right! There is a God! Charles Darwin was wrong! etc. etc. [/fundie] Fundies/YEC/Idiots just can't grasp the concept of an incorrect hypothesis, and "back to the drawing board" mentality. :banghead: Cheers, Lane

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.