Falsehoods #2

It’s no-longer Friday anywhere – indeed, it’s a Sunday afternoon in these parts – but I need to clear some browser tabs. As such we have a somewhat wider pool to draw from.


1. Interpreting Craters in Terms of the Day Four Cratering Hypothesis, Danny Faulkner, Answers Research Journal, 22 January

Rhea and Dione, the second and fourth largest satellites of Saturn, are very similar (see figs. 8 and 9). As with every satellite that we have examined closely, they have synchronous rotation. That is, they rotate and revolve with the same period. This means that they keep one face toward the planet at all times, but they also keep one face forward in their orbits (the leading side) and one face trailing (the trailing side). The leading sides of Rhea and Dione are very different from their trailing sides. The leading side of Rhea is bright and contains many craters. The trailing side is darker and contains markedly fewer craters, but the trailing side also is crossed by brighter swaths that appear to be tectonically formed ice cliffs. This suggests that little geological reworking has occurred on the leading side, but that much more has taken place on the trailing side. Alternately, more impacts occurred on the leading side as it orbited Saturn. The latter explanation is supported by most planetary scientists. However, the appearance is reversed on Dione, with the leading side having fewer craters and the trailing side having more. The standard explanation is that Dione originally had its more heavily cratered side leading, but that a large impact spun it around after most craters had formed. The leading side of either satellite is brighter than the trailing side. This amounts to special pleading. It’s not clear how this surface could be interpreted in terms of the Day Four cratering hypothesis.


2. Do Foxes Have Magnetic Senses?, Brian Thomas, Institute for Creation Research, 24 January

Where could a well-integrated and effective system such as this come from? The researchers wrote in Biology Letters, “Foxes may have evolved a different solution to this problem” of localizing prey without the advantage of sight. But no evidence supports the claim that foxes or environments or any combination of natural forces ever could invent a microscopic geomagnetic detector designed to solve hunting problems—or any other problems. Real solutions come from intelligent problem-solvers, so why would the foxes’ solution not also have been invented by specific intent?


3. Discussing Science – 2, (Unknown), Theology Archaeology, 25 January

The more I read about scientific books and articles, the more I get the idea that secular scientists are just playing a game with the general public. Their vocabulary is filled with words like, ‘atoms’, ‘neutrons’, ‘quarks’, ‘gluons’, etc., all of which have never been seen by any scientist at any time.


And here’s your next page link, if you want to see my commentary. What do you think?

About these ads

6 thoughts on “Falsehoods #2

  1. I think you are not qualified to make such comments and you miss the point of what was said. Insulting others simply means you and being condescending only means that you lack in so many areas. You are also misinformed about atoms and other sub-atomic particles as that point was double-checked and secular scientists all wrote that no one has seen an atom or anything smaller.

    You should learn to double check before you write.

    • I went over to TheologyArchaeology’s website where they claim no scientist has ever seen an atom, quark, etc. and diogenized them. They’re putting up a fight… it’s a bit like beating puppies. Very incoherent puppies.

    • They let you post? I read their commenting policy a while back and its very much set up to be an echo chamber. e.g.

      On this forum wikipedia is not accepted as credible

      On this forum the Bible is accepted as a credible source and is considered truthful in all areas it touches upon.

      [...]

      This site comes from the Biblical perspective alone, alternatives are viewed as false and deceptions.

      No wonder there never seem to be any comments there.

  2. Heya Mr. L, just wanted to complement you on finding a magnificently blithe and narrow-minded person and having them show up on you blog. I’m a bit jealous at your ability to ferret out the obliviously crazy.
    —Stabby at RW

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s