Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

[Kylie]

Earth doesn't emit visible light, but it does emit infrared radiation, thanks to the hot molten core.

Well, technically, yes, but there's not an ongoing process maintaining it. It's like a frying pan that's been taken off the stove and cooling down. With the sun, it's more like a log that's burning in a fire.

 

[Tone]

Hang on, let's get something straight here.

The sun does not reflect light like the moon does. The light we see coming from the sun is created by changes that release energy that are taking place within the sun itself and consuming the material of the sun. The sun is not taking light that originated from somewhere else.

Are you sure? The Moon is also not reflecting, if it was we would burn...it is re-emitting and since it requires the Moon to do so, it lays claim to the light as source.

 

[Kylie]

Are you sure? The Moon is also not reflecting, if it was we would burn...it is re-emitting and since it requires the Moon to do so, it lays claim to the light as source.

Yes, the moon is reflecting.

Why do you think we would burn?

And the moon is not a light source because the moon is not the SOURCE of the light.

 

[Tone]

The sun is not taking light that originated from somewhere else

The Sun is taking it from "changes that release energy", as you said.

 

[Tone]

No it isn't.

Did you watch this:

?

 

[Tone]

Yes, the moon is reflecting.

Why do you think we would burn?

And the moon is not a light source because the moon is not the SOURCE of the light.

Then the Sun is not the source either...only closer to it perhaps.

 

[Tone]

I just spotted this thread:

Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

 

[Tone]

Then the Sun is not the source either...only closer to it perhaps.

If the Sun were the light source...there would be no other light from anywhere else.

 

[Yttrium]

I just spotted this thread:

Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

That's because Kylie just performed necromancy on it after AV brought it up a little bit ago in this thread.

 

[Kylie]

That's because Kylie just performed necromancy on it after AV brought it up a little bit ago in this thread.

I actually thought that was this thread. AV performed necromancy via proxy.

 

[Kylie]

Did you watch this:

?

No. I've got better things to do than spend 8 minutes watching a video about something I already understand.

Care to summarise the arguments presented?

 

[Kylie]

Then the Sun is not the source either...only closer to it perhaps.

Incorrect. The sun is the source because the light itself is coming from components of the sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV performed necromancy via proxy.

... Wow.

That's a good one!

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect. The sun is the source because the light itself is coming from components of the sun.

Sun emits light.

Light hits moon.

Light is re-emitted ... not reflected per se ... as proprietary (now belonging to the moon) light.

 

[Kylie]

Sun emits light.

Correct.

Light hits moon.

Correct.

Light is re-emitted ... not reflected per se ... as proprietary (now belonging to the moon) light.

Oh, and you were going so well.

If the moon was re-emitting the light, then the moon would be either fluorescent or phosphorescent. In both of these, an atom absorbs a photon, bumping it up to a higher energy level. This higher level is unstable, and the atom soon reverts back to a lower energy state, emitting energy once again. But the moon doesn't do this.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the moon was re-emitting the light, then the moon would be either fluorescent or phosphorescent. In both of these, an atom absorbs a photon, bumping it up to a higher energy level. This higher level is unstable, and the atom soon reverts back to a lower energy state, emitting energy once again. But the moon doesn't do this.

You'll have to watch the video.

I'm not going to break it down into microseconds and discuss it frame by frame.

If you don't want to watch the video, fine.

Just accuse me of something stupid and move on.

I'll consider the source.

 

[Kylie]

You'll have to watch the video.

I'm not going to break it down into microseconds and discuss it frame by frame.

If you don't want to watch the video, fine.

Just accuse me of something stupid and move on.

I'll consider the source.

Such a drama queen.

I'm not asking you to analyse every individual frame. Just summarise the main points. It's not hard.

 

[AV1611VET]

Such a drama queen.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not asking you to analyse every individual frame. Just summarise the main points. It's not hard.

It is if one is unschooled in critical thinking, has had little or no practice at constructing organised reports, or tuition in precis writing. We could say there are two types of people in the World: those who like articles in Nature and those who enjoy YouTube videos. Never the twain shall meet . . . in understanding.

 

[Astrophile]

How long has this not been going on?

The lunar maria (the dark areas of the Moon) consist of volcanic basalt, which was incandescent while it was being erupted, so at that time the Moon did, in a sense, have its own light. However, large-scale volcanic activity on the Moon ended about 3000 million years ago, so since then the Moon has not had any light of its own.