Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Thank you.

And I'll work on that tonight ;D

[medved]

Furthermore, we know from the extensive topographic relief long since verified by Earth- and spacecraft-based radar, that the crust of Venus is thick.

Just as I said, nothing but an assumption; no real measurements or any other basis.

[PatrickHenry]

A getting burned out by inane creation tactics bump.

You're not alone.

[Junior]

You're kidding, right? You just posted the line wherein they said they took measurements with radar and other instruments. You're hit upside the head with the reference and the evidence and you still claim it's an "assumption?" I'll tell you what's an assumption -- the idea that Venus is young, despite the mountains of evidence that it is very old.

[medved]

The second, and far sneakier point, almost seems to make sense, and could easily trap the unwary. I will only mention in passing that if Taylor [F.W. Taylor, in chap. 20, Hunten, et al. (1983)] really had meant to imply that all data prior to PV should be "tossed out", then he could easily have said so more directly, or in fact, since he was the lead author of the paper in question, he could have simply done it. But he didn't do it, nor did he say it, nor did he imply it. We don't need Mr. Holden to tell us what Taylor "really" meant.

This is basically Tim Thompson's desparate and idiotic claim that albedo values for Venus dating from the 1800's need to be averaged in with the good readings from Pioneer Venus in 1978, since that would produce a slightly lower number which would be more to his liking.

The basic problem: 1978 technology is simply better than 1878 technology.

Don't believe me? Lotsa different ways to settle that one... We could have a race: I'll use my 1995 automobile, and you can use a horse. Or a shooting contest: I'll use a modern rifle and you can use one of Custer's 45/70's. Or a boat race: I'll use a modern hydroplane and you can use a paddlewheel....

Tim Thompson is a total idiot and nobody with any brains and talent would quote him.

[Junior]

Now you're just being thick. He never said what you say he said. What he did say is that you can safely include the figures from the late 19th century to the present in reference to the albedo of Venus. The methods used to measure albedo at that time are as valid as they are today, and no one said today's measurements obviated, or even contradicted the earlier measurements -- that seems to be something you came up with all on your own in an effort to bolster a hypothesis that has very little going for it. If you need to cook the numbers and dream up "conspiracies" by the scientific community to make a case for your pet hypothesis, maybe it's time to take a good look at what you are trying to prove.

[Junior]

Tim Thompson is a total idiot and nobody with any brains and talent would quote him.

He does seem to have done a whole lot more actual research than you have. If that makes him an idiot, maybe you need to make a dictionary your next major purchase.

[Junior]

I'll use a modern rifle and you can use one of Custer's 45/70's.

Now, if you let me use a .303 Lee-Metford bolt action rifle and you get an M-16A2, we can take pot shots at each other from 1000 meters ...

[medved]

The methods used to measure albedo at that time are as valid as they are today

Sorry, but that's flagrant BS. You're going to tell me that measurements taken from Earth starting in the 1800's are as good as measurements taken in 1978 from orbitting vehicles right on top of the planet? The only meaningful way to even talk about averaging anything would be averaging measurements taken from orbit STARTING FROM 1978; anything prior to that you throw away.

[medved]

The real comparison would be between the 303 and a Sako 338 Lapua at 1500 meters. I'd not want to be the guy with the 303...

[VadeRetro]

Now, if you let me use a .303 Lee-Metford bolt action rifle and you get an M-16A2, we can take pot shots at each other from 1000 meters ...

BWAHAHA!

I'm a .303 enthusiast myself, although I bet a Lee Metford (Boer War era) is a lot tougher to find than the ubiquitous Enfield.

[VadeRetro]

All very nice, but today's very latest instruments weren't around in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. They can't tell us anything about what the albedo of Venus was in the late 19th century. We have no time machine.

Just the same, we have data from an already sufficiently technological society on just that subject. The people who were alive at the time were interested in the question and took readings.

And I still say that none of this albedo stuff can possibly rescue Velikovskian catastrophism. Whether or not Venus is in thermal equilibrium right now, it isn't as young as you need it to be.

The crust, the craters. The observations of Venus as a morning and evening star by the Sumerians in 3000 BC. The silliness of Velikovsky's story.

The island of Thera (AKA Santorini) blew up. A biggie, like Tambora in 1815, many times bigger than Krakatoa. A 6000 foot mountain powdered itself, turning itself into a crater in a lagoon formed by the broken ring of islands (remnants of the one big one) around it.

The whole eastern Mediterranean took a hit. Tsunamis, ash clouds. We know for sure this happened.

That's all you need to postulate to explain the fall of the Minoan Empire (a garbled version of which is the Atlantis legend), darkness in Egypt, flooding, etc. You don't need a wandering Venus.

Occam's Razor.

[Junior]

That's why I chose it. The Lee Metford is roughly from the same era as the initial albedo readings of Venus and, if I remember correctly, it has a range out to about 2000 yards (the M16A2 has a range of about 400 meters).

[Junior]

You're not getting the picture, are you? The readings from the probes did not contradict the readings by telescope, did they? And, since albedo is a measure of the amount of light reflected by a body it doesn't really matter where the viewer is stationed to make the readings, does it? I don't have to be 5" from the Sun to know accurately how much light it gives off; neither do you need to be in orbit around Venus to measure the amount of light it reflects.

[RightWhale]

This thread ought to be over on the short bus forum. In fact all interesting threads ought to be over there so I don't have wear out my mouse clicker trying to keep up.

[Scully]

Really, it's got all the regularity and organization of a well-worn symphony - the conductor flicks his baton just so, and there's Archaeopteryx. A slight wave to the percussion, and there's a tidal wave of a post purporting to be the be-all and end-all of the debate. A lifted eyebrow to the brass, and there's a whale's hips. A wiggle to the piccolos, and a post springs forth showing that Darwinism invariably leads to lesbian abortionist Nazis. A quick flick of the wrist, and the strings shout out with the geologic column. A wink and a nod, and the oboes burst forth into a song of statistics. And so it goes, gradually growing more and more dissonant, as the proxy arguments over the toes of sloths and the lengths of genomes and such slowly give way to the same futile question every time - "Is there a Goddammit?"

Kudos! (And I agree) So now that most of us are sick of the symphony...how do we change it to have some meaningful dialogue?

[RadioAstronomer]

When I was at JPL, I used to work with a prominent planetary geologist. We would get into discussions prior to the Magellan spacecraft data about the mechanisms of the thermodynamic morphology of the Venusian surface. It had beed postulated that continental drift could be the mechanism on Venus like it is here on Earth. After the Magellan radar data was analyzed, continental drift on Venus was demonstrated not be the case. It is now theorized that entire regions of the landmass would subduct all at once.

[PatrickHenry]

So now that most of us are sick of the symphony...how do we change it to have some meaningful dialogue?

These things take time. Back in the 1630s, a forum like this (had it existed) discussing the solar system would have been just as rancorous. Today, astronomers can peacefully discuss their ideas, generally free of strident opponents. There will come a time when evolution is the same. That time is not now, alas. All we can do is put the information out there. And try to behave.

[Scully]

If anyone is interested, an excellent JPL paper on the Magellan data is available at:

Guide to Magellan Image Interpretation

Subduction of underthrust slabs, mantle plume upwelling and downwelling, crustal shortening, and rifting all probably play a significant role in the formation of surficial Venusian tectonic features.