According dating relationship roche
To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time.
It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.
The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else.
This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say.
Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I will also supply two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation save that our Earth is old. That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began.
As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight. I will refute every last "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago!
Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists.
Furthermore, isolated data, even if correct, are often misleading.
Consequently, scientists must evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points.
Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts.
Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.
Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his arguments.