Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 2:20am

i dont dismiss a theory just because it conflicts with my faith, Im open to whatever the facts are. and since you and i weren't there when the universe began we have to excercise a certain amount of "faith " right ?whether it's in certain evolutionary scientists or in creation scientists "data" or in your own data if you have the time and resources to do it (which would be great for both of "us" )thanks for your freethinking comment,PEACE!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew on November 4, 2009 at 9:55pm

faith for people with religion. i will take facts (a fact is something that can be proven or disproven unlike faith) and the science process thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ashli Axtell on November 4, 2009 at 11:07pm

Morgan already said this, but I had to echo his sentiment:

What a fantastic video! I'm so glad you posted this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 20, 2009 at 10:44am

Cite the studies, Luis, not just names of people who you claim support your proposal. Incidentally, Dr Eddy (and Dr Boornazian, who you left out) are the authors of that one, single study that I mentioned in 1979. (I made the mistake of saying 1980 before. It was ICR's article on the study that was in 1980) It was published as a scientific abstract calling for more research, not as a proposal of fact. The title of Eddy's and Boornazian's abstract, by the way, was Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953, and it was later withdrawn by its authors when serious flaws were found in its methodology and when further studies presented contrary evidence (LaBonte and Howard, 1981; Parkinson et al., 1980; Shapiro, 1980; Stephenson, 1982) It was never submitted for publication, nor published. It was, however, pounced upon by the ICR, which has steadfastly promoted a flawed, distorted and false version of the abstract ever since.

As for your other names:

Hilton Hinderliter: PhD in physics from Penn State. Wrote the anecdotal-style paper in 1980 published in Creation Research Society Quarterly mentioned above. Curiously enough, also stated that the fossils of human and dinosaur footprints together were valid, despite no archaeological training.

Thomas Barnes: Founding member of the Creation Research Society, electrical engineer, a masters degree in physics (his doctorate was honorary) Opposes relativity in favor of classical physics.

Harold L. Armstrong: Founding member of the Creation Research Society, and a noted geocentrist. Also opposes relativity in favor of classical physics. Supposedly has a master's degree, no doctorate and is a professor of physics at Queen's University in Kingston, ON. However, this data comes exclusively from creationist websites, and I cannot find any other evidence of his reputed degrees. It is of note that not only does Wikipedia not have an entry for him, but Queen's University does not have him listed as a professor, or indeed at all.

Andrew A. Snelling: See this link

D.W. Dunham: Physicist, published paper on change in solar radius in 1980. Later concluded that "the solar radius changes are not secular (monotonic and uniform)".

A.D. Fiala: Co-author with Dunham. Also has determined that the change in the sun's radius is not constant.

J.R. Lesh: Physicist that did a followup study after the initial 1979 abstract and concluded that the original data was inaccurate, and that the change in the sun's size was much smaller than had been reported.

You need to do research, rather than blindly accept what your creationist website claim, Luis. Creationist sites are notorious for misreporting facts, distorting claims, and outright lying.

For a more detailed overview of the shrinking sun legend, try reading this.



Oh, and as for the big bang? Only people completely ignorant of the actual theory claim that it was 'an explosion'. The 'Big Bang' was a rapid expansion of space/time. Not 'an explosion'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 2:34am

what do you believe about "lucy"(australopithecus) do you believe she was a human ancestor? (sorry off the subject but i'd llike to know your views on this) also whats the best link for YOUR" big bang hypothesis" definition?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 23, 2009 at 9:15am

Changing the topic, luis? That's a typical dishonest tactic that is used when someone gets pinned down, they swiftly throw in a red herring or two so that they don't have to address the actual point that is being discussed. No comment on the data I provided on your 'shrinking sun' claim?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on November 4, 2009 at 7:05pm

hey bro ill have to find where Eddy recanted and then ill get back to you,so whats your answer to the "lucy" question? also can you give me info to a link for where i can read for my self about john eddys recanting the "sun" claim?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on November 4, 2009 at 8:02pm

The paper, an abstract by Eddy and Boornazian was never publish: Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953, Eddy and Boornazian, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 11:437 (1979)

The data they were pulling from was from 7 different astronomers over a 90 year period. Follow-up analysis displayed that the data they were examining had significant variance in both methodology and instrumentation used. And it was old data, the more recent data, measured with more modern "high-tech" equipment in the 80s and 90s clearly showed their premise to be false. And even more recent studies show that the sun cycles with slight variance.

"The rate of solar shrinkage suggested by Eddy and Boornazian was disputed from the outset. In the same month that Eddy and Boornazian's preliminary report was presented, S. Sofia, J. O'Keefe, J. R. Lesh and A. S. Endal published an article in Science which expressed the judgment that, on the basis of available data (mostly from meridian transit observations), the sun's angular diameter did not diminish by more than 0.5 are second 6 between 1850 and 1937. This value was less than one-fourth the rate proposed by Eddy and Boornazian."

"In addition to the timing of solar meridian transits, other observations can be employed to determine the sun's diameter. In 1980, Irwin Shapiro published his analysis of the transits of Mercury in front of the sun from 1736 to 1973. Shapiro concluded that no significant change in the sun's diameter could be detected, and that the maximum shrinkage rate allowed by the data was 0.3 are second per century, about one-seventh of the Eddy and Boornazian value."

"Similarly, D. W. Dunham et alia analyzed solar eclipse data and concluded that between 1715 and 1979 the sun's diameter may have decreased, but only by 0.7 are second, equivalent to a rate of about 0.25 are second per century."

"The discrepancy between these results and the report by Eddy and Boornazian called for a second look at the solar meridian transit data. John H. Parkinson, Leslie V. Morrison and F. Richard Stephenson performed such a re-evaluation and concluded that the trends in the Greenwich data reported by Eddy and Boornazian "are the result of instrumental and The Sun in Hydrogen-Alpha Light observational defects rather than real changes.""

In 1984, Claus Frohlich and John Eddy release a paper on recent measurements: Observed Relation between Solar Luminosity and Radius

C. Frohlich and J. A. Eddy, "Observed Relation between Solar Luminosity and Radius" (Paper presented at an international conference sponsored by the Committee on Space Research, July, 1984, in Graz, Austria)

In that paper they note that from 1967-80 there was actually a slight increase in the size of the sun; but "since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing."

"Eddy and Boornazian chose to look for variations in solar diameter by investigating historical records of solar meridian transits. Their preliminary results suggested a long term contraction at a surprisingly high rate. Though they did not consider their results ready for formal publication, Eddy and Boornazian decided to present their puzzle in a brief talk at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. In this way the professional scientific community could join them in a critical evaluation of the data and their interpretation."

This article gives a pretty solid beat-down of the rapidly shrinking sun premise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 20, 2009 at 11:21am

As Shine points out, "dozens of independent studies" and "studies done independently" are empty claims without naming some studies or linking to them.

As for the sun "shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour" -- the two primary sites touting this are the "Institute for Creation Research" and "Answers In Genesis" -- both of which are dismissed by real scientists.

You should also take a look at the origins of these claims. The 'sun shrinking' hypothesis was presented by John Eddy & Aram Boornazian in 1979 (but most of the creation websites cite this as a "recent" study). Furthermore, the data they analyzed was from 1836-1953; we have 55 years of more recent more accurate data that completely fails to support the claim. Still further, after peer review they decided NOT to publish the paper, and later retracted their claims.

Dr Eddy is a credible source, creationists fail to use his most recent information though. He is credited with "advancing the theory that the Sun is a variable star" - not a shrinking star. He maintains his credibility as a scientist because he retracted his claims once he realized they did not live up to his original hypothesis - that's what real scientists do.

Because this claim caused some curiosity, some others started research. From 1981-1987 T. M. Brown and J. Christensen-Dalsgaard studied solar photospheric radius, and released their findings and analysis in 1998. Their results show a constant radius with minor fluxing variations; but absolutely NONE of the claimed 5-6 feet of shrink per hour. Reports from the San Fernando Solar Observatory indicate that the sun expands and contracts with some variance over the eleven year solar cycle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on November 4, 2009 at 7:24pm

hey bro ,youre critisizing creationists for a study done over a couple decades and now youre quoting a study that was done around 6 years or so. " why does someone assume that a study done around 6 years or so means that its a consistent trend? p.s. same question for the SFS OBSERVATORY statement.PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don't label my essence! (Jared) on November 6, 2009 at 9:18am

Luis, they are criticizing creationists for pointing to a paper as if it supported their claims when that very paper went unpublished because it's authors realized that the data they were drawing their conclusions from was unreliable and thus their conclusions were flawed. When better data was studied all signs pointed to the sun being variable in size.
If you really are open to facts, regardless of the implications to your faith, then why are you so eager to defend a paper withdrawn by it's authors while simultaneously dismissing actual studies which point to the sun being a variable star? Eddy and Boornazian admitted that they were wrong on this issue, why can't you admit that they were wrong?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on November 6, 2009 at 10:13am

Louis, Louis, Louis......~just shakes my head~

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page