Is the sun shrinking? No

[TeleMad]

blazer2000x: If the sun has always been shrinking at its current rate, then it would have charred the earth to dust if you go back just a little over ten thousand years.

 

This assumes that the sun is shrinking and has been undergoing the same rate of change as far back as one goes. Not so: the sun oscillates in size.

 

The Creationist logic is kind of like taking several close-in-time measurements of the tide then assuming that that same trend will continue into the future and continued backward into the past. But that clearly doesn't work. Suppose the tide rose steadily for a total of 6 feet in 6 hours: extrapolation would indicate that the tide would rise another ~9,000 feet over the next year, and was ~9,000 feet lower a year ago. Clearly wrong.

 

Evidence shows that the sun's diameter oscillates every so often (about 80 years). So even if it is shrinking consistently over a 50-year span, it will be expanding at a later point in time.

 

”In category ninety-two, Brown claims that the sun is shrinking at a constant rate and that it cannot be more than a million years old. In support, he cites three sources (Dunham et al., 1980; Gribbin and Sattaur, 1984; Lubkin, 1979). Unfortunately, two of his sources are out of date and the third supplies evidence that undercuts Brown's claim. From the very beginning, the claim of a shrinking sun was disputed by contrary evidence (for example, LaBonte and Howard, 1981; Parkinson et al., 1980; Shapiro, 1980; Stephenson, 1982). It now appears that the sun oscillates on about an eighty-year cycle (Gilliland, 1981; Parkinson et al., 1980; Parkinson, 1983). It should be noted that several of the authors of one of the papers Brown cites (Dunham et al., 1980) recently concluded that "the solar radius changes are not secular (monotonic and uniform)" and that "the Mercury transit data convincingly disproved the existence of large secular changes in the solar radius" (Sofia et al., 1983, p. 525). More recently, the claim has again been made that the sun was once significantly larger than it is now, specifically during the seventeenth century (Ribes et al., 1987), but this study failed to account for certain systematic instrumental effects which invalidate the claim (O'Dell and Van Heiden, 1987). Measurements of the solar radius, contrary to Brown, are not a reliable measurement of the sun's age. (See also chapter three of Van Till et al., 1988, pp. 47-65, for a description of creationists' use of the "shrinking sun" claim and the evidence against it, including a note on p. 51 that a 1984 paper by Claus Frohlich and John Eddy reported an increase in the solar diameter between 1967 and 1980. The chapter comments specifically on Brown and was originally published in the September 1986 Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, so Brown should have been aware of its existence.)”

(http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9154_issue_26_volume_9_number_2__8_21_2003.asp)

[Stargazer]

Ah yes, that argument again. It seems like creationism is based on warped logic, misunderstanding of science, misrepresentation of data, ignoring all the problems with creationism, and lots and lots of strawmen. It is telling that they haven't produced a single shred of evidence or a valid argument to support their position. Of course that won't happen, since we now know a lot more about the universe, and it supports other theories. It's just weird that they don't go all the way and accept a flat Earth, for example.

[Biochemist]

Speaking as a moderator, I request that we maintain respect for other opinions. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree on matters of fact. But please refrain from casting aspersions by associating unrelated arguments.

[nkt]

Speaking as a moderator, I request that we maintain respect for other opinions. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree on matters of fact. But please refrain from casting aspersions by associating unrelated arguments.

The only issue with that is that when someone states that snow is white only on Tuesdays, or that it is black, or made of French Fries, how do you start arguing such a thing, when they quote something totally mad as a source, like the King of America's biography of 1912?

 

In another thread, someone posted hundreds of errors off a faulty assumption as fact, when the real answer is that the definitition is the definition, and he was just wrong, as he was simply making up his own definition, based on his incorrect assumption.

 

It is very hard to argue or do anything with that, especially when whatever you post gets mostly ignored, and they simply post a load more faulty stuff without explanation as an "rebuff".:cup: Or they just state that you are "Wrong!".

 

It's kind of maddening.

[Biochemist]

...It is very hard to argue or do anything with that, especially when whatever you post gets mostly ignored, and they simply post a load more faulty stuff without explanation as an "rebuff"....It's kind of maddening.

I understand. I do believe, however, that we can elevate the tenor of discussion by focusing on fact, clarfication of definition, and critique of sources.

 

Thanks for the comment.

[bumab]

Shouldn't this thread be in the lounge, anyway? It's not asking a question about evolution...

[Tormod]

I don't know where this thread came from in the first place...but I'm moving it to the watercooler.

[Stargazer]

I'm simply saying what everyone already knows, or should know, that is, creationism is not science. It's pseudoscience. I made the observation that the arguments being used to support creationism were all invalid in one way or another, and I also pointed out the complete lack of evidence in favour of creationism.

 

What exactly is meant by "respect"? I could try to be more polite, but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is worthless pseudoscience, and I will always say so and explain why. If that is a violation of the rules of this science board, I would like to hear that directly from the administrator, Tormod.

[Biochemist]

I'm simply saying what everyone already knows, or should know, that is, creationism is not science. It's pseudoscience.

And you are welcome to that opinion.

I could try to be more polite...

Thank you. We would all appreciate that.

...If that is a violation of the rules of this science board, I would like to hear that directly from the administrator, Tormod.

Feel free to contact Tormod at any time. In the interim, moderators are assigned to enforce forum standards. There are one or more specifically assigned to each forum.

[bumab]

Now that this thread is in the watercooler, I feel I can contribute without perpetuating the problem

 

I could try to be more polite, but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is worthless pseudoscience, and I will always say so and explain why. If that is a violation of the rules of this science board....

 

In a science board, then, one would assume to find things about science- natural phenomenon, experiments, discoveries, and the like. One would not expect to find simple opinion bashing and character attacks. Some people are ignorant, and some are simply misinformed. That never gives anybody the right to mock them for their ideas. Starting a thread specifically for that is just mean.

 

A discussion of alternative theories that leak like a seive is one thing, using that as a platform to attack the minds and characters of others is another.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

Now that this thread is in the watercooler, I feel I can contribute without perpetuating the problem

 

 

 

In a science board, then, one would assume to find things about science- natural phenomenon, experiments, discoveries, and the like. One would not expect to find simple opinion bashing and character attacks. Some people are ignorant, and some are simply misinformed. That never gives anybody the right to mock them for their ideas. Starting a thread specifically for that is just mean.

 

A discussion of alternative theories that leak like a seive is one thing, using that as a platform to attack the minds and characters of others is another.

BUT!!! Whoever said that one had to be logical in

having an opinion or even fair? Or even expect that everyone would

do what was ethical, moral or legal? Life is a beach, stuff happens, and etc.. What many of you say there is no God but you seem to treat SCIENCE as some kinda god! is that true? that seems illogical to me and you can chalk me up to being illogical if you wish as who said i had to be logical in everyones view or even if that was ever going to be possible as i am sure you would agree is true of any assertion by anyone!

[Stargazer]

bumab, I am attacking creationism and will always continue to do so. If it is pseudoscience, that's what I will call it, doesn't matter if anyone wants creationism to be true. It doesn't matter if people think it deserves the same respect as actual science - it doesn't. All the arguments I hear are indeed invalid, and they do use a lot of strawmen, and the arguments are based on bad science. Should I not be allowed to point this out? Should I just step away and say well that viewpoint is equally valid, when in fact it's not?

[GAHD]

For science context leads to reason.

For religion reason leads to context.

 

One assumes what we think matters to the way things are, the other assumes the way things are matters to what we think. I wonder which is a survival trait and which a culling mechanism?

[Tormod]

bumab, I am attacking creationism and will always continue to do so. If it is pseudoscience, that's what I will call it, doesn't matter if anyone wants creationism to be true.

 

You are welcome to do so and so is everyone else.

 

It doesn't matter if people think it deserves the same respect as actual science - it doesn't. All the arguments I hear are indeed invalid, and they do use a lot of strawmen, and the arguments are based on bad science. Should I not be allowed to point this out?

 

Yes, of course you are. But keep in mind that it is important to point out *why* - not everyone is used to reading your arguments and knowing your position. This applies to everyone, of course (including myself...).

 

Should I just step away and say well that viewpoint is equally valid, when in fact it's not?

 

Well. This is a difficult question. Each viewpoint is valid but obviously not from another's viewpoint (ah, please understand that correctly). If we as atheists demand that creationists respect our views, we also need to respect their views. We can argue against it, and fight if we want, but we still need to follow the rules of the game.

 

I have no problems accepting that *you* think that a viewpoint is invalid. I also know I can have a tendency to both think and post stuff which conveys that idea, too. But we cannot hold a monopoly on truth. We can only point out where we think they are wrong, and take it from there.

[bumab]

Well, Tormod did an excellent job, but I'll reply as well.

 

I am attacking creationism and will always continue to do so. If it is pseudoscience, that's what I will call it, doesn't matter if anyone wants creationism to be true.

 

I was only saying the creation of a thread specifically for the purpose of bashing anothers views was inappropriate, as this one was. It's a personal respect thing. You don't have to believe it's true to still show some respect for the individuals involved.

 

It doesn't matter if people think it deserves the same respect as actual science - it doesn't.

 

The ideas don't, the people do.

 

All the arguments I hear are indeed invalid, and they do use a lot of strawmen, and the arguments are based on bad science. Should I not be allowed to point this out?

 

Of course you should point it out. Just not in a hostile way, and especially not for the fun of it. Strawmen arguments are used all the time to attack religion as well. One would hope those religious folk would not go starting fights (especially on a science forum). Sadly, they do. Then a fight is deserved, but still, with a modicum of respect.

 

Should I just step away and say well that viewpoint is equally valid, when in fact it's not?

 

I never would tell anyone to say that.

[C1ay]

I was only saying the creation of a thread specifically for the purpose of bashing anothers views was inappropriate, as this one was. It's a personal respect thing. You don't have to believe it's true to still show some respect for the individuals involved.

To play devil's advocate I don't particularly agree that is the case here. Blazer made the claim that the sun is shrinking in the 'Round Two: God vs. Darwin' thread and it would have been off topic to discuss that specific claim in that thread. Telemad's opening post in this thread looks like a disagreement with the claim and quotes the claimant for context. I don't see anything wrong with that. He didn't make any derogatory remarks about Blazer, he only countered Blazer's claim. He also did not have a choice to rebut Blazer's claim in the original thread since it was closed the day before this thread was started.

 

Just my 2¢,

[bumab]

Ahh. I didn't notice the thread had been closed. Sorry about that TM. I'll hold to my positions that the posts had a negitive tone that doesn't belong, but I definitly retract my points about the creation of a thread to attack an easy target.

 

Thanks for calling me on that C1ay!