Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive4

In response to #88
We say "Its transient nature belies its origins as..." - shouldn't that say "indicates"? "Belies" means the opposite... ("to give a false impression of; to present an appearance not in agreement with"). Or maybe it just needs to be better worded? 01:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Old, but not that old
I'm not too happy with some dismissals of YEC evidence that dating systems point to an age of the Earth (AotE) that is older than their claimed 6,000 - 10,000 years but is still billions of years less than the accepted scientific values. The point that they make when say something points to a 1 million year old Earth (for example) is not that they accept the AotE as 1m years but that methods of "evolutionist" science are flawed. I think we set ourselves up for an easy dismissal when we take this approach and that we should concentrate on why the science points to an old-Earth. 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be made a cover story
(Please do not archive this section)

This article seems like it should need very little work to be promoted to cover story status, and could be pretty good as a random feature. There are still a couple of "evidences" that need polishing off, mostly in geology which I know next to bugger all about. If someone could fill those in, that'd be good. Other than that, a little bit more polishing and we're there. Thoughts? -- 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see the blank sections filled in, even though it looks like most of them are incredibly trivial claims over individual locations of stratic phenomena. When there's no blanks left, yeah, this ought to go "cover".  00:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we also do a quality check on the rebuttals, a few of them just repeat the argument that the AiG point is attacking? 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And a couple are more snark than rebuttal, whereas we ought to be going for some of each. -- 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So cleanup and cover story. It'd also go well in the spirit of making the site less CP-centric. 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good but I think it's probably too long for a cover article. While I really think it's a good piece (although, as mentioned, it could do with a quality check) I'd like the covers to be punchier than this one. 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always the "best of" categories when it's ready if we don't "cover story" it. 22:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I read through the whole thing the other day, and I think it's not cover material as it stands. Not only are there still 17 assertions with no response, but many of our responses are sloppily written, uncited and/or badly argued. There's a long way to go. Totnesmartin 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What Tots said. 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

#96
"The calculation is flawed, as a 0.5% annual growth rate from 6 people 4,500 years ago provides 6 × 1.0054500 = 3.35 × 1010 people. [So some died - what's our point? 3 x 10^10 is 30 billion, right]

The world population growth for the last 40 years has been at 1.2-1.6% per year. Extrapolating back this gives 20,000 people in 4000 BCE. Indeed, where are all those people?

Playing with the creationists' figures gives some amusing results. Did you know that half the people in the entire world fought at the battle of Marathon, and the other half are waiting to fight the battles in China in the Warring States period?

The reality is that as we see in animals today, the human population was relatively static for much of our history. Only our technical advances in food production and medicine enable our extraordinary population growth rates."

I tried some cleanup, but most of our response here (except the last line) is gibberish - and bad math. WTF are we saying? 07:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it's some kind of attempt at humour, captain. Taking the creationists figures and applying them to known historical events. Unfortunately it all falls down because no actual figures are given. Basically it fails as refutation and fails at sarcasm, and is one of many sections that needs a rewrite. Totnesmartin 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically it is a comment on the Conservapedia's Law-like model for the world's population of humans, ie. it should have a constant geometric growth. For starters their model of 0.5% growth (this already take into account deaths by the way) for 6,000 years gives you an order of magnitude too great, than the current population, fail one. Fail two, the actual growth for the last century 1.2-1.6% per year, when using this number with the same model CMI proposed, gives 5 orders of magnitude too great for the day of creation. We can then use the CMI model, with the original parameter to show that during well recorded events, their model gives stupid numbers for the world's population. 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I basically get that that is what it is trying to do. Problem is, it's incredibly unclear.  Can we just rewrite it in a more straightforward fashion, then perhaps snark it up?  Like Paul said in Let It Be?  23:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any citable creationist sources for how many people were killed in the Flood? It would seem that arguments 96 and 97 would apply equally to the Biblical account: where are the bodies of a billion humans killed simultaneously all over the world? Where are the artifacts of thousands of cities buried suddenly in sediment, etc?--Martin Arrowsmith 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

#79 - Neptune's rings
In point 79, CP CMI states
 * Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.

and our refutation states
 * Firstly, Saturn's rings say nothing about the age of the planet itself but more importantly Saturn's moons (mainly the moon's Pandora and Prometheus) act as shepherds as they move in orbit around Saturn, pushing particles back into the rings.

Have astronomers directly observed shepherd moons around Neptune, in which case the refutation should discus them. If astronomers haven't then the article should indication the current refutation is known to occur around Saturn, and is strongly suspected to occur around Neptune as well. The WP article states that astronomers aren't sure of the cause Neptune's rings stability yet. As an aside, what is the case for Jupiter and Uranus? CS Miller 13:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Galatea is thought to be a shepherd moon, but no others have been discovered. And a moon called "gala tea" is my kind of moon. Totnesmartin 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, something like this


 * The age of a gas giant is not necessarily related to the ages of its rings. Planetary rings are formed when either
 * The protoplantery dust is within the Roche Limit; this will stop it consolidating into moon.
 * A previously captured rubble-pile asteroid orbit decays in within the Roche Limit for the planet, the rings consist of rubble upto the size of a large boulder. (A few metres in diameter). If the asteroid is below the synchronous orbit radius then tidal friction will cause it slow down further, and pass through the Roche Limit. Also, all retrograde orbits will decay.


 * Shepherd moons can survive within the Roche Limit as they are fused and are held together by tensile strength and not just their gravity (and the Roche Limit is higher for less dense moons). Any object deflected from the ring by gravity/deflections is nudged back into the ring by the shepherd's gravity or collides with it.


 * (insert reference to the mechanics of this).


 * Here is a list of Neptune's moons and rings note that between each ring there is a moon; it is likely that these are the shepherds. The Adams' ring has distinct clumps; it is possible that this ring has been newly formed and has not yet been smoothed out. The mechanics of Neptune's rings are not yet fully understood, however Saturn's is and there the main shepherd rings are Pandora and Prometheus. As they move in orbit around Saturn they push particles back into the rings.
 * I'm not sure we need to mention that the shepherd moons can be less dense that their rings (and I don't know if this is normally the case anyway).
 * CS Miller 14:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They can't be les dense than the rings (the rings are mostly space) - do you mean less dense than the rings' component ice/rocks/back tarry stuff? Totnesmartin 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant that the Shepherd moons could be less dense that the rings' component rocks et al. CS Miller 16:57, 29 September 2009


 * Some calculations-
 * The synchronous orbital speed for a planet from Kepler's third law is $$s=\left(\frac{GMP^2}{4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3}$$, where $$M$$ is the mass of the planet, and $$P$$ is its rotational period (planet-day). For for Neptune it is 83Mm.
 * The Roche limit, substituting only for $$\rho_M$$ is $$s=\left(\frac{6M}{8\pi\rho_m}\right)^{1/3}$$, where $$M$$ is the mass of the planet, and $$\rho_m$$ is the density of the asteroid.
 * Given the typical density of an asteroid is 2g/cm-3, it can be shown that the Roche limit is 71Mm . All the rings of Neptune are within typical Roche limits.


 * I'm not sure those links to WP go to the right section of the articles. Do we want to baffle people with science?
 * BTW, my spellchecker offers to replace "Totnesmartin" with "Outsmarting". Just thought you'd like that. CS Miller 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends if I'm doing it or having it done to me. Totnesmartin 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)