The Abiogenesis/Atheism Fallacy
- Thread starter HAPMinistries
- Start date
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
I agree with your first paragraph, so we'll drop whatever you were trying to say there, and the anti-Hovind site's calculations put the Earth's spin 4 billion years ago at 12 hours a day, which is not a problem.
So instead, we'll move on to the actual problem:
Yes, we've added more seconds than 1.7. However, we've already established that the leap second is added due to our poor measurement of time prior to the issue being noticed, and not to do with the Earth's spin. If I counted to 10 slightly faster than you, does that mean that you're slowing down your count? No, it just means that I'm counting faster. The time measurements we have set up in UTC mean that we're counting time faster than it actually goes by, so we have to add bits in every now and again to keep it in line.
The Earth is slowing down. The leap second is not an indicator of how fast this is happening.
So what exactly are you trying to demonstrate here? We've added leap seconds to keep UTC somewhat accurate, and the Earth is slowing down at around an average of 2 milliseconds and century. What's the problem?
So instead, we'll move on to the actual problem:
Yes, we've added more seconds than 1.7. However, we've already established that the leap second is added due to our poor measurement of time prior to the issue being noticed, and not to do with the Earth's spin. If I counted to 10 slightly faster than you, does that mean that you're slowing down your count? No, it just means that I'm counting faster. The time measurements we have set up in UTC mean that we're counting time faster than it actually goes by, so we have to add bits in every now and again to keep it in line.
The Earth is slowing down. The leap second is not an indicator of how fast this is happening.
So what exactly are you trying to demonstrate here? We've added leap seconds to keep UTC somewhat accurate, and the Earth is slowing down at around an average of 2 milliseconds and century. What's the problem?
Upvote
0
Absolutely not.
The point is, if you were in perfect time, and I was in perfect time, even though our timing would differ, there would be a perfectly consistent difference. That is what i kept comparing to the Leap Year. You have one every four years, period. You do not have one after 3 years, then after 5 years, then 3 years in a row... no, like clockwork, one every four years.
It it was just a timing difference, it would be perfectly predictable.
That there is only 1 variable, and I have asked you for any other, and none of our references point to any other variable that would cause time to waiver in an inconsistent pattern. That would be the earth's rotation slowing down.
Through the 8 year span of 1972-1979, 9 seconds were gained, but from 1999-today, only 2 seconds have gained.
That is terribly inconsistent. There is a 9 second gain in 8 years, then a 2 second gain over 12, going into 13 years.
Using your example, If you counted to 10, .1 seconds faster than me, after counting 10 times, you would perfectly be 1 second faster.
After counting 20 times, you would be 2 seconds faster.
After counting 30 times, you would be 3 seconds faster.
After counting 40 times, you would be 4 seconds faster.
After counting 50 times, you would be 5 seconds faster.
BUT
If after counting 10 times, you would be 2 seconds faster, then something would be wrong. Something else would be influencing the extra second.
Again, the only variable that is inconsistent is Earth's rotation.
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
It's not just a timing difference - it is a timing difference that is effected by the slowing down of the Earths rotation, leading to irregularity.
If you want a better way of looking at it, I'm counting to 100 but slowing down at varying speeds. You are still counting faster than I am, but you're trying to keep in sync with me, meaning that at random points you have to count the same number twice. Now, early on, you were counting a lot faster than me, but now I'm not slowing down as much, so you don't have to count twice as much. The amount of times you have to count twice does not indicate how fast I am slowing down, because it's the amount I slow down plus the amount you counted faster than me.
Basically, it's both the Earth slowing down and us counting too fast that leads to leap seconds. Does that make more sense?
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
So you understand that the Earth is not slowing down as fast as you originally claimed, and therefore the argument that the Earth would have been spinning too fast 4 billion years ago is wrong, yes?
If that's the case then I think we've made a first for this forum.
Upvote
0
I understand that we lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
Since the only inconsistent variable is earth's slowing rotation, and here we have record of a 7 second disparity, the earth may not be slowing at 1 second every 18 months, but is DEFINITELY slowing must faster than all other suggested time frames.
You say:
"the Earth is not slowing down as fast as you originally claimed"
I presented the subject of Dr. Kent Hovind's point, then I gave the counter argument, all in 1 post.
You have just officially misunderstood it, and just proved my first post to be true.
Upvote
0
CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Kent is not a Ph.D. Kent is a liar. Kent is a fraud.
I would urge you to reconsider using Kent as a source for anything scientific in the future.
Upvote
0
CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Which speaks volumes about your character and ethics.Dr. Kent Hovind, thank you very much!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
We didn't. We added them.
Why? What is your mathematics that supports this view?
You realise that even a tiny change in the deceleration of the Earth's rotation would make huge changes to how many leap seconds we need right?
And you appear to have ignored everything I've said, because you're still arguing something we just agreed was wrong.
Upvote
0
You ask...
Then you answer your question.
And then you get confused enough to say...
We both agree it is the slowing rotation of the earth that is causing the inconsistency. The evidence shows: We lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
Then you answer your question.
And then you get confused enough to say...
We both agree it is the slowing rotation of the earth that is causing the inconsistency. The evidence shows: We lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
Upvote
0
Which speaks volumes about your character and ethics.
Ad hominem
2+2=4, no matter the character of a person who states it.
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
We agree on this.
We don't agree that the world is slowing down faster than current suggested time-frame; you have yet to demonstrate why this is true. That is the mathematics I requested.
Upvote
0
Nostromo
Brian Blessed can take a hike
I don't understand why that's even an issue. You've read the Wikipedia page on the Leap Second, and everything you need to understand why that happened is in there.
Between 1972 and 1979 they had to account for the differences between the time standards that had accumulated since 1958, and in 1999 the rotation rate of the Earth increased, so fewer leap seconds have been needed recently.
When people say it will change by X amount over Y period of time, that's an average. The Earth's rotation is not uniform, over short periods there will be irregularities that will take it away from the average.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
We lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
Well that is a inconsistent slow down.
If you need math to understand, then:
+9seconds/8years > +2seconds/11years
Now if you are asking for a perfect formula of slow down, I would point that the term inconsistent means just that. Inconsistent.
That said, in total we have 24 seconds gained over a 39 year period.
+24seconds /39years = +0.615384615 seconds per year.
Wiki says:
"The leap second adjustment (which is approximately 0.6 seconds per year) is necessary because of the difference between the length of the SI day (based on the mean solar day"
Leap second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can see where you would say, "ok, 0.61... - 0.6 = 0.01... seconds, that works for me, I'm going to bed..."
Sadly, if 0.6 seconds was true, then the graph would look like this:
Year Jun 30 Dec 31
1972 +1 0
1973 0 +1
1974 0 0
1975 +1 0
1976 0 +1
1977 0 0
1978 +1 0
1979 0 +1
1980 0 0
1981 +1 0
1982 0 +1
1983 0 0
1984 +1 0
1985 0 +1
1986 0 0
1987 +1 0
1988 0 +1
1989 0 0
1990 +1 0
1991 0 +1
1992 0 0
1993 +1 0
1994 0 +1
1995 0 0
1996 +1 0
1997 0 +1
1998 0 0
1999 +1 0
2000 0 +1
2001 0 0
2002 +1 0
2003 0 0
2004 0 +1
2005 0 0
2006 +1 0
2007 0 +1
2008 0 0
2009 +1 0
2010 0 +1
2011 0
But it doesn't.
It looks nothing like that.
This is what it looks like:
Year Jun 30 Dec 31
1972 +1 +1
1973 0 +1
1974 0 +1
1975 0 +1
1976 0 +1
1977 0 +1
1978 0 +1
1979 0 +1
1980 0 0
1981 +1 0
1982 +1 0
1983 +1 0
1984 0 0
1985 +1 0
1986 0 0
1987 0 +1
1988 0 0
1989 0 +1
1990 0 +1
1991 0 0
1992 +1 0
1993 +1 0
1994 +1 0
1995 0 +1
1996 0 0
1997 +1 0
1998 0 +1
1999 0 0
2000 0 0
2001 0 0
2002 0 0
2003 0 0
2004 0 0
2005 0 +1
2006 0 0
2007 0 0
2008 0 +1
2009 0 0
2010 0 0
2011 0
As I have said, and Wiki says, earths rotation is the only inconsistent value. So one of 2 things are true.
A - The variable between the clocks are not 0.6 seconds, but much less, and the earth is slowing much quicker than presented.
B - The variable between the clocks is consistently 0.6 seconds, and the earth has been 'Speeding Up Massively' since 1999:
+2Seconds/11years = 0.181818182 seconds per year
0.6 - 0.18 = -0.42 seconds per year difference.
So the earth has increased it's rotation speed [since earth's rotation is the only inconsistent value] by -0.42 seconds per year over the past 11 years.
Take your pick.
What is known is earth's rotation debunks the time of the gaps fallacy.
Upvote
0
It didn't 'just' increase...
It increased 0.42 seconds/year for over a decade now, if you go that route.
For people who believes the earth only gain a second over thousands of years, you seem to not grasp we just lost 4 full seconds over the past 10 years...
...if you go that route.
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
The variable changes. It averages out to 0.6 seconds a year. You understand the concept of an average, right? That's what the wiki page is referring to. It's the mean difference, not the constant difference.
Not remotely, you just appear to have forgotten some basic elements of mathematics. At some point, you're going to have to realise that the leap second says pretty much nothing about how fast the Earth is decelerating. On the other hand, the actual measurements to work out how fast the Earth is decelerating come up with the figures you're disputing. The leap second is not an alternative argument, it's an alternative subject.
I also feel it necessary that, because you are constantly assuming that these measurements are constants, you're ignoring the fact that the time difference is cumulative, leading to the massive differences between the deceleration of the Earth and the leap seconds.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am amazed after all of this time you accusing me of not reading the wiki section on Leap Year, it turns out to be you who never read it. Did you notice I even quoted it? Did you see the link?
There are 2 effects causing a change in time:
1 - the differences in the clocks, which is NOT variable, but consistent.
2 - the rotation of the earth, which is inconsistent and does vary.
You are debunked, you see the disparity now, and I am glad.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Nostromo
Brian Blessed can take a hike
No, that's just sloppy English. The rotation rate didn't increase by 0.42 seconds per year, it increased so that our measurement of a standard year and the solar year differed by about that much.
We lose the seconds, the Earth does not. Our timing system runs fast relative to the real rotation of the Earth, so we adjust it occassionally.
In 1820 the mean solar day was 86400 seconds exactly, today it is 86400.002, that's a difference of ~0.7s in the length of a year over a period of two centuries.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
