To: Jack Brannan Msg #108, 930402 20:11:14 Subject: Re: Helium = Quoting Jack Brannan to C

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Carl Wilson To: Jack Brannan Msg #108, 93-04-02 20:11:14 Subject: Re: Helium -=> Quoting Jack Brannan to Carl Wilson <=- JB> Carl I lost your original message on this, I wanted JB> to reply to it. I have a question for you, you claim JB> creationists are always misrepresenting facts (you and JB> your fellow evolutionists), why have you done so here. JB> No creationist has ever given a figure of 1% per year, JB> creationists use the same data you do. When I first saw the "Shrinking Sun Theory" some years ago, (as told to me by a creationist on a BBS) a rate of approximately 1% per year was given. A book titled, "Our Turbulent Sun" was the source of this idea. In chapter 6, "The Shrinking Sun", creationists took statements like the following: "The amount of apparent shrinkage was extraordinary." "If the sun were to continue shrinking at the rate of 2 seconds or arc per century, it would disappear in 960 centuries." They then used this and similar statements to come up with the "Shrinking Sun Theory" to prove a young earth. But, for some reason, they didn't see statements like the following in the same chapter: "No one, least of all Eddy and Boornazian, [the individuals doing this research] thought that this [sun disappear in 96,000 years] was going to happen." "The shrinkage was assumed to be taking place in the sun's outer layer's, not the entire solar mass. Were it otherwise, [entire mass shrinking] the shrinkage would have produced more than 200 times the observed luminosity of the sun!" JB> What is the figure given by mainstream science? No one JB> disputes the shrinkage, only the rate and it is given as JB> 1% per CENTURY as a high end figure, many think the figure JB> is about 1/7th of this. Actually, almost everyone disputes the shrinkage. Most astronomers agree, that if anything, the sun is a bit larger (about 6%) than it originally was. There may be *temporary* shrinkages, but not a steady, permanent one. Even the astronomer [Eddy] that thought that the sun was shrinking said the following at the end of the chapter: "I now feel that we were probably wrong." And, "The Data looked like you could trust it." He then goes into a lengthy discussion of how the data was corrupted. The chapter closes with this last paragraph: "It may be ten years before a long-enough record is compiled to see a trend in any of these measurements. Then we may know whether the studies of the past two years showing a small decline in solar diameter have been a fascinating but futile exercise of attempting to tease too much information out of too-imprecise sets of measurements, or whether the sun really is TEMPORARILY {caps mine} shrinking. So whether the "Shrinking Sun Theory" rate is 1% per year or per century, it really doesn't matter. The whole thing is based on quoting a book out of context. Besides, the creationist that told me about this should have had his "facts" straight when he told me "1% per year". JB> I have a question for you, you claim creationists are JB> always misrepresenting facts (you and your fellow JB> evolutionists), why have you done so here. You were saying? ... Creationists either ignore the facts, or are ignorant of the facts. From: Carl Wilson To: Jack Brannan Msg #115, 93-04-02 23:37:30 Subject: Re: HELIUM -=> Quoting Jack Brannan to Henry Shaw <=- JB> The exact figures given by creationists are supplied by JB> data from mainstream science which shows a shrinkage rate JB> during the last 100 plus years of 1% per CENTURY, not JB> yearly. Creationist literature also says quite plainly JB> this figure is contested and may be as low as 1/7 of that JB> rate. Data from the past 400 years has also been JB> used (eclipse) to confirm shrinkage. This study was JB> published on Physics Today, which is not a creationist JB> journal. And you still ignore the fact that there is NO evidence of constant shrinkage since the formation of the solar system. THAT is the key to the SciCre, young earth theory known as the "Shrinking Sun Theory". If you *really* think there is all this evidence that the sun's been shrinking at a constant rate during its entire lifetime, then read the astronomy books yourself and post your findings here. While the idea that the sun may be going through a *cyclic* shrinkage *might* be supported by some, you would be very hard pressed to find a single astronomer or astrophysicist that would claim a *constant* shrinkage since the sun formed. And without the constant shrinkage, your "young earth" based on the "Shrinking Sun Theory" falls to pieces. And I also find it very unlikely that precise measurements of the needed accuracy were being performed 400 years ago. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) was reputed as being able to take the most accurate measurements of celestial body positions of any astronomer of his day. He was able to take measurements accurate to about 1 minute of arc. Very good considering. To be able to measure a shrinkage of 1% per century, you would have to be able to take measurements showing a change of a few *seconds* of arc. And if the actual shrinkage is really 1/7 of that, these 16th century astronomers were taking measurements that late 19th century astronomers would envy. ... "Scientific Creation": Just religion in disguise..

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank