You Do the Math:

Jan. 2004 I came across your page, "You Do the Math" at http://www.netpluscom.com/~johnsonr/math.html , through Google while trying to find some non-Hovind-based instances of the solar-mass-loss claim. While your claims are obvious derived from Hovind, either directly or from a secondary or tertiary source, still the title caught my eye. You see, in the next version of my page on that claim (first draft is at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/solar_mass.html ) I'm including the punch-line of a video-game-station [¿Sega?] commercial from years ago: "Do the math!" Plus, in reading it I found that I just had to as you this question: "Did YOU do the math?" Consider this claim from your page:"The mass of the sun has been measured to be decreasing at a rate of 5 Million tons/second as it converts mass to energy. This equates to about a 5 foot/hour decrease in the size of the sun. If you extrapolate this back 20 million years the sun would have been touching the Earth." Did you do the math on this claim? Judging from the conclusions, I don't think that you did. Go on, do the math. Calculate how much mass would be lost per year and then how much would have been lost in five billion years. And then compare that total mass loss with the total mass of the sun. What you will find is that the total mass lost in five billion years would amount to only a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. Go ahead; do the math! Next, please explain how that loss of mass is supposed to "[equate] to about a 5 foot/hour decrease in the size of the sun". I know of no such correlation ever having been done. You see, I know where that "5 foot/hour decrease" comes from. It comes from Russell Akridge's April 1980 ICR Impact article, "ICR IMPACT No. 82: THE SUN IS SHRINKING", which in turn is based on the abstract of an article that was never published. The reason why that article was never published is because the measurements it was based on had systematic errors in them. That claim has been soundly refuted, but that has never stopped creationists from repeating it. And I have recently seen a graph of several measurements taken over several years, many long before the readings used in Eddy and Boornizian's study; taking all the points into account showed no overall change in the sun's diameter for centuries, whereas the small cluster of readings in Eddy and Boornizian's study that had been taken over a much shorter period of time falsely showed a lot of change. In other words, there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. For that matter, Akridge's article wasn't even based on the actual abstract itself, but rather on an editorial-column report about it. Does the term "primary source" mean anything to you? A good article on this claim is "The Legend of the Shrinking Sun -- A Case Study Comparing Professional Science and 'Creation Science' in Action" by Howard J. Van Till, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38.3:164-174 (9/1986). Also published as Chapter Three of "Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism" by Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young, Clarence Menninga, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1988. URL: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html . BTW, the ASA is a Christian organization of scientists. Now, think for a moment about the purported correlation between mass loss and diameter change. You are saying that 5 million tons lost per second (Oh! what kind of tons, BTW?) translate to 5 feet shrinkage per hour (OBTW, is that the diameter or the radius you're talking about? I'll bail you out here; Akridge claims it's the diameter that's shrinking at 5 ft/hr). They're directly proportional according to you. But try this little experiment: Take a clay sphere you can hold in your hands. Take another clay sphere the exact same size. Mold them together into a single sphere. You have just doubled the mass of the sphere and, because the density did not change, you also just doubled the volume. Has the radius also doubled? No. The radius of the new sphere is greater, but not doubled. It increased by the cube root of 2 (if I calculated that correctly), which is about 1.26 . You see, while the volume should be roughly directly proportional to the mass (barring complexities introduced by the compressibility of gasses), the radius (and hence the diameter) are not, because Volume = (4/3)*pi*radius^3. Do the math! >From astronomy, we can work out the relationship between mass and size for the sun. We know that a G0 star is 1.06 times the mass of the sun (which is a G2 star) and has a radius 1.1 times that of the sun; the diameters will also be the same ratio, such that the G2 star's diameter is 1.1 times that of the sun. From having done the math, we figure that the ancient sun 5 billion years ago was 1.00037 times as massive as it is now, so then its diameter was 1.03812 times the current solar diameter of 864,949 miles; ie, the ancient sun's diameter would have been 897,921 miles. The difference in diameter is 32,972 miles, or 174,092,160 feet. The average shrinkage of the sun's diameter due to mass loss over 5 billion years would have been 0.0348 feet/year or 0.4178 inches/year -- less than half an inch each year! Over 5 billion years, the radius would have shrunk by 16,486 miles. Do the math! That is only 0.018 % of the earth's orbital radius. 5 billion years ago, the surface of the sun missed the earth by about 92.98 million miles! Contrary to your claim, 20 million years ago the surface of the sun missed the earth by an even greater margin. Do the math! Or should I ask why you urge US to do the math while YOU obviously never bothered to. Or did you do the math, but then decided to lie to us? Now consider this claim on your page:"The Earth has been measured as slowing down in its rotation. In fact, we need to periodically add leap seconds to keep the precise atomic clocks in synchronization with the Earth due to this slowing. ( I can verify this fact personally as my last job required me to maintain a precise timing system with cesium standards). The rate of slowing requires us to add about 1 second every other year. If you look back in time you will quickly see that if we look back 1 Million years, the Earth would be spinning so fast that it would fly apart." The problem is that that's not exactly what leap seconds are about; I can verify this fact personally as my current job has me working with software that interfaces with GPS receivers and has to deal intimately with leap seconds. Leap seconds do not indicate how much the earth has slowed down in its rotation -- no more than adding a day every four years is supposed to mean that the earth's orbital speed has slowed down -- , but rather, like leap years, they correct the accumulated discrepancy between atomic-clock time and universal time (UTC) due to UTC's second having become longer than the standard second being measured by atomic clocks. Yes, the earth's rotation is slowing down, but it is slowing down at the rate of 2 milliseconds per day every century. That means that in 100 years, the length of the day has become about 2 milliseconds longer, or also that every year gets 5 milliseconds longer. Your rate of 1 sec per year per year is inflated by a factor of 200. Do the math!So, to answer your question of how long a day would have been one billion years ago:1 million years / (100 years/century) = 10,000 centuries.10,000 centuries * 2 milliseconds per day per century = 20 seconds shorter.Therefore, one million years ago, one day should have been about 23 hours, 59 minutes, 40 seconds long. The earth would have been spinning only marginally faster, nowhere near fast enough "that it would fly apart."Do the math! Because the earth's rotational rate is of importance for navigation of sea-, air-, and spacecraft, the US Naval Observatory has two departments involved in the direct monitoring of the earth's rotation: the Earth Orientation Department and the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS). Refer to the USNO's web page at http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html for more information. The mistake of assuming that adding a leap second every year meant that the earth's rotation had slowed down by one second in that year was apparently first made by Walter Brown circa 1979. It was picked up by many creationists, including R. Wysong in 1981, who in turn formed the basis for Scott Huse's 1983 repeating of the claim, who in turn forms the basis for Hovind's current repeating of the claim, who in turn forms the basis for YOUR repeating of the claim. But it doesn't matter how many generations of creationists repeat a false claim; the claim is still false! BTW, the claim was refuted soundly by Thwaites and Awbrey in 1982 in their article, "As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?" by William M. Thwaites and Frank T. Awbrey, Creation/Evolution, Issue IX, Summer 1982, pp.18-22, reprinted at http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/ 9626_issue_09__volume_3_number_3__1_3_2003.asp . In that same article, Thwaites & Awbrey performed the calculation for the length of the day 4.5 billion years ago and arrived at a 13-hour day. They then pointed out that Jupiter has a ten-hour day and does not suffer from the extreme shape distortion that Brown predicted for the ancient earth ("The earth would have been shaped like a very rapidly spinning pizza crust." -- indirectly quoted by Thwaites & Awbrey). Now that you know that those claims are false, what are you going to do? To leave them there as they are would be lying. Are you supposed to use lies to serve God? To remove them quietly would still support the lying as those claims are also present on many other sites, including Hovind's. In order to serve Truth and the God of Truth, you need to expose them as being false claims. What are you going to do about them? DWise1 DWise1 Thank you for your email. I am not the author of the article you are referring to. And if it's not accurate, I certainly don't want it on my page. Perhaps I'll run by some of my NASA friends and have them check it out. Have a good day

  Greater Works:

Dec. 2003 When Jesus said greater things we will do in his name...how come we are not seeing these greater things in this day? Kelly Kelly; There are a couple of passages that talk about "greater things" or "greater works." I believe the one you are referring to is: John 14:8-13 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. I hesitate to answer your question because I don't feel that I can be completely certain that the answer I have is the correct one. Therefore, if you don't mind, I'd like to just quote Matthew Henry (17th century Bible Scholar). Rev. Henry writes the following concerning John 14:12: [Jesus assures the disciples of two things]: 1. That they should be enabled to do such works as he had done, and that they should have a more ample power for the doing of them than they had had when he first sent them forth, Mat 10:8. Did Christ heal the sick, cleanse the leper, raise the dead? So should they. Did he convince and convert sinners, and draw multitudes to him? So should they. Though he should depart, the work should not cease, nor fall to the ground, but should be carried on as vigorously and successfully as ever; and it is still in the doing. 2. That they should do greater works than these. In the kingdom of nature they should work greater miracles. No miracle is little, but some to our apprehension seem greater than others. Christ had healed with the hem of his garment, but Peter with his shadow (Acts 5:15), Paul by the handkerchief that had touched him Acts 19:12. Christ wrought miracles for two or three years in one country, but his followers wrought miracles in his name for many ages in divers countries. You shall do greater works, if there be occasion, for the glory of God. The prayer of faith, if at any time it had been necessary, would have removed mountains. I hope this helps some.

  Hatred:

Dec. 2003 Hey... I found your site this evening, and I was wondering if I could ask you a question. What does the bible say about hating others? I thought maybe you could help me with finding a verse or two or a hundred. :) By the way, it's a great site. :) Thanks. Thanks for viewing my web site, I'm glad you like it. Below are several verses concerning hatred. The one that sums it up nicely is 1 John 3:15. Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Prov 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. Prov 10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. Prov 26:24-26 He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be showed before the whole congregation. Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

  Dinosaurs, Plate Tectonics, Women Ministers:

Nov. 2003 I was looking at your site again and i have some questions, well, two actually. The first one is that i was wondering where the dinosaurs were in the bible. I know in Job it talks about the Behemoth and the Unicorn, but why doesn't it mention more about the dinosaurs or did i just miss it? Also, I was wondering how the plate tectonics worked in the bible, because it is too much of a coincidence that the continents seem to have all fit together at one time. I even traced the coastline of south America to find out that it is almost perfect with Africa. I was wondering how that was all planned out by God. Finally, I go to a church that has a woman pastor, and i don't know much about how wrong that is or if it is wrong nowadays and why is it so wrong. Should i continue to go to this church with awareness that something needs to be looked out for, or should i just not give it a second thought because it's fine. I know the Bible says that the women are more easy to influence by the devil, but i wanted an expert's opinion about that. Well thanks for your time and i hope you can help. Andrew Andrew; Thanks for viewing my web site and taking the time to write. Your email scared me a little bit because I don't want anyone thinking I'm an "expert." I'm just a regular Christian that likes to read and study the Word (and I take real good notes). My opinion isn't worth very much, that's why I answer questions using lots of scriptures. Having said that, I get three questions from your email: Dinosaurs in the Bible? Plate tectonics? Women pastors? #1 Dinosaurs in the Bible? The actual word dinosaurs does not appear in the Bible. The main reason it doesn't is because that term was not used until the 1800s. However, these animals are mentioned in the Bible. You've pointed out a couple already. In Job 40:15 the behemoth is mentioned. I have noticed in commentaries that folks like to say that the behemoth is a hippopotamus or an elephant. But if you look at the description of behemoth, you will see that he sounds like a dinosaur: Job 40:15-18 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. The "tail like a cedar" is the part that makes me think this is not a hippopotamus or an elephant. Then there is the leviathan mentioned in Job 41. The whole chapter is a description of this animal and he sounds big and fierce. He lived in the water, and had scales. Leviathan is also mentioned in Psa 74:14, Psa 104:26, and Isa 27:1. Then there are dragons mentioned in scripture; Deu 32:33, Job 30:29, Psa 44:19, Psa 74:13, Psa 91:13, Psa 148:7, Isa 13:22, Isa 27:1, Isa 34:13, Isa 35:7, Isa 43:20, Isa 51:9, Jer 9:11, Jer 10:22, Jer 14:6, Jer 49:33, Jer 51:34, Jer 51:37, Ezek 29:3, Micah 1:8, and Mal 1:3. So, you see there are many places in scripture where very large reptiles are mentioned, they just were called by a different name. There is a very good web site that deals with this topic. It's by the group Answers In Genesis. This link will take you directly to the page that deals with dinosaurs and will probably give you a lot more detail. #2 Plate tectonics? The theory that all the continents were joined at one time and have moved apart is mentioned in the Bible. There are only two verses that I'm aware of (there may be others, but these are the ones that come to mind). The two verses are almost identical. They are part of the genealogies: Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 1 Chr 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan. When I first read these verses, I immediately thought of the theory that the continents were at one time joined and then broke apart. I don't know if that is what these verses are referring to or not, but it could be. #3 Women Pastors? When I first put this web site up on the internet, I was very surprised to find that this was the topic that would generate the most questions and comments. At the bottom of this page, you will see a list of numbers. These are links to the pages of comments that I have recieved. If you go back through these pages, you will find quite a bit of commentary about women ministers. When I get a little free time, I'll post them all in one place and link them to the What Does the Bible Say About ...Women Ministers page. In the mean time, I'll simply answer your question by saying no I would not attend a church that has a woman pastor. And the reason is that I feel scripture is very clear on this subject. I've given a good bit of scripture and the reasons I feel this way in previous comments, so I won't go into it all again (in the interest of disk space). But if you don't mind, just click back through the comments and look for the headings Women Ministers The following pages have comments about women pastors:  [2]   [3]   [4]   [6]   [7]   [9]  I hope I've been able to help and answer some of your questions. God Bless.