# Does The Moon Disprove Evolution Timeline?

44 replies to this topic

### #1 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 December 2008 - 01:30 AM

The eclipse of the sun tells us a lot about how things work. And how math an intelligence were a part of our created universe. Most people look at the eclipse and just think it's a yawner. But when you actually look into the math required to make this work the way that it does. You soon realize that this could not work unless someone designed it to work this way.

The things that have to be factored in to make this work is:

1) We have exact sizes of three objects.
2) We have exact placement of three objects.
3) Earth's exact distance from the sun in order for life to exist on this planet.
4) We have the exact angles needed to create this on the surface of this planet:

The picture above is an example of how the exact placement, size, and distance of three objects cast a precise shadow that allows us to see the sun's chromosphere all the way around the moon while standing in one place. This is called being in the focal point of the eclipse.

The black spot you see on the earth pic is the focal point of an eclipse of the sun on the earth's surface. You have to be standing within that focal point to even see the eclipse. And you would also have to be standing there to be able to see the sun's chromosphere around the moon during a total eclipse. Now how far away does the moon have to move, in order for this to not exist anymore? But according to old earth belief, it just happens to be this way after billions of years? See the math chart below about how 3 inches turns into several miles over time.

So let's do some math with the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon per year:

1 Foot would take 4 years.
10 feet would take 40 years.
100 feet would take 400 years.
1,000 feet would take 4,000 years.
5,280 feet (1 mile) would take 21,120 years.

For a 6,000 year old universe, this would mean the moon moved out of orbit less than 1/4 of a mile.

But let's go back in time and allow the moon to move 3 inches closer per year and see if the time-line required for evolution will work. Science claims that the moon is around 3-4 billion years old. So let's do the math.

We will use 21,120 years (reference) because that is the one mile movement mark for 3 inches of decay per year.

1 million years 47.35 miles closer.
2 million years 94.70 miles closer.
3 million years 142.05 miles closer.
1 billion years 47,350 miles closer.
2 billion years 94,700 miles closer.
3 billion years 142,050 miles closer.

This may not seem like much until you apply the inverse square law of gravity. Which means all life would have been destroyed by moon's gravity, because it was so close to the earth. Which would explain what happened to the dinosaurs. They got mooned to death .

But the extra gravitational pull from the moon would flood the earth twice a day as extra high tides would be like constant storm surges. The earth's crust would be pulled upon so that there would be constant major earth quakes. And because of the constant movement of the earth's crust, volcanic eruptions would be constant as well.

Here is a flash animation on how the moon's orbit decay would effect the eclipse. Yet some how, we are now living at the exact "correct" time in which all objects are the correct distance and size to see this? The odds of this are to much just for this to just happen. Unless one believes in constant random chances, which is not reasonable thinking.

When there is a total eclipse of the sun, there is another thing that happens:

When you look through a prism, you can see what is called the flash spectrum of the sun, as shown in the pic above.

Using the flash spectrum, science has been able to figure out more precisely, the gas make up of our sun. This knowledge has opened the door of knowledge about other stars in our universe. And has helped out physics area of science understand more about how stars live and die.

Which supports my theory about God created things in our universe just so, so that we can better understand how things work. Like created things already aged.

### #2 jason777

jason777

Moderator

• Moderator Team
• 2670 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
• Age: 40
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 December 2008 - 01:55 AM

Great info. ikester,thanks for sharing.

Ofcourse most people would say yes it does cause problems.A retired astrophysisist from NASA said all they have to do is throw a huge imaginary asteroid at the moon and problem solved.Thats also how they solved the problem with mercury still having a magnetic feild.

If it's broke just throw a big rock at it and it's fixed.

Thanks.

### #3 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 December 2008 - 02:46 AM

It's kinda hard to comprehend. But to put it into prospective. Take a round object like a coin or a marble. Stand a certain distance from an exposed light bulb. Close one eye and adjust the distance of the object in your hand until it only allows a very little light around the edges of the object.

You may have to adjust your distance from the light to make this work.

Now take a smaller or bigger round object and do the same thing. You will notice that the rules change when the object held in your hand changes size. Now as you look at the object with the light shining around the edges. Imagine that the light bulb just got bigger in size. Now what would you have to do to compensate? You would have to bring held object in closer. Now if the bulb got smaller, you would have to make it further away to get the same effect.

What you demonstrated by doing this is that how the math of making this work changes when the size of the object produces light changes. Or the size of object that blocks the light changes. Your distance has to change.

So after doing that experiment, does it make you think that the distance of all objects, and their sizes just happened so the eclipse just happens?

### #4 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

AKA st_dissent

• Veteran Member
• 683 posts
• Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
• Age: 29
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 05:14 AM

The eclipse of the sun tells us a lot about how things work. And how math an intelligence were a part of our created universe. Most people look at the eclipse and just think it's a yawner. But when you actually look into the math required to make this work the way that it does. You soon realize that this could not work unless someone designed it to work this way.

The things that have to be factored in to make this work is:

1) We have exact sizes of three objects.
2) We have exact placement of three objects.
3) Earth's exact distance from the sun in order for life to exist on this planet.
4) We have the exact angles needed to create this on the surface of this planet:

The picture above is an example of how the exact placement, size, and distance of three objects cast a precise shadow that allows us to see the sun's chromosphere all the way around the moon while standing in one place. This is called being in the focal point of the eclipse.

The black spot you see on the earth pic is the focal point of an eclipse of the sun on the earth's surface. You have to be standing within that focal point to even see the eclipse. And you would also have to be standing there to be able to see the sun's chromosphere around the moon during a total eclipse. Now how far away does the moon have to move, in order for this to not exist anymore? But according to old earth belief, it just happens to be this way after billions of years? See the math chart below about how 3 inches turns into several miles over time.

So let's do some math with the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon per year:

1 Foot would take 4 years.
10 feet would take 40 years.
100 feet would take 400 years.
1,000 feet would take 4,000 years.
5,280 feet (1 mile) would take 21,120 years.

For a 6,000 year old universe, this would mean the moon moved out of orbit less than 1/4 of a mile.

But let's go back in time and allow the moon to move 3 inches closer per year and see if the time-line required for evolution will work. Science claims that the moon is around 3-4 billion years old. So let's do the math.

We will use 21,120 years (reference) because that is the one mile movement mark for 3 inches of decay per year.

1 million yearsÃ‚Â  47.35 miles closer.Ã‚Â
2 million yearsÃ‚Â  94.70 miles closer.
3 million yearsÃ‚Â  142.05 miles closer.
1 billion yearsÃ‚Â  47,350 miles closer.
2 billion yearsÃ‚Â  94,700 miles closer.
3 billion yearsÃ‚Â  142,050 miles closer.

This may not seem like much until you apply the inverse square law of gravity. Which means all life would have been destroyed by moon's gravity, because it was so close to the earth. Which would explain what happened to the dinosaurs. They got mooned to deathÃ‚Â  .

But the extra gravitational pull from the moon would flood the earth twice a day as extra high tides would be like constant storm surges. The earth's crust would be pulled upon so that there would be constant major earth quakes. And because of the constant movement of the earth's crust, volcanic eruptions would be constant as well.

Here is a flash animation on how the moon's orbit decay would effect the eclipse. Yet some how, we are now living at the exact "correct" time in which all objects are the correct distance and size to see this? The odds of this are to much just for this to just happen. Unless one believes in constant random chances, which is not reasonable thinking.

When there is a total eclipse of the sun, there is another thing that happens:

When you look through a prism, you can see what is called the flash spectrum of the sun, as shown in the pic above.

Using the flash spectrum, science has been able to figure out more precisely, the gas make up of our sun. This knowledge has opened the door of knowledge about other stars in our universe. And has helped out physics area of science understand more about how stars live and die.

Which supports my theory about God created things in our universe just so, so that we can better understand how things work. Like created things already aged.

A few things wrong with this.

1. Total solar eclipses are rare on Earth - most are partial or unable to even be seen by anyone.
2. They can only be seen in certain parts of the world.
3. If you stand on Phobos you can see the planet Mars totally eclipse the Sun.
4. You would see eclipses on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

So it doesn't amaze me that total solar eclipses can be seen sometimes by some people on Earth. You would find amazing coincidences on whichever planet you inhabited.

The Moon is currently moving away from the Earth at 3 inches per year. However, if it has always moved 3 inches per year it would violate conservation of Energy. As the moon moves farther away it begins to slow down. Orbital dynamics tells us that it moved faster away from the Earth further back in time. Now, tidal forces between the two bodies would change but they would change gradually not abruptly so major tidal changes would only be noticeable when averaging through many many years. I would like to see how you calculated the catastrophic events you attribute to the moon's tidal forces on the Earth changing with time and distance away from the Earth.

### #5 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:02 AM

A few things wrong with this.

1.Ã‚Â  Total solar eclipses are rare on Earth - most are partial or unable to even be seen by anyone.

That shows how the placement must be for it to even happen.

2.Ã‚Â  They can only be seen in certain parts of the world.

This is because of the moon's orbit. I see no problem here.

3.Ã‚Â  If you stand on Phobos you can see the planet Mars totally eclipse the Sun.

So how does that prove or disprove anything?

4.Ã‚Â  You would see eclipses on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

The further you are away from the sun, the eclipse shadow extends further from the moon that makes the shadow.

So it doesn't amaze me that total solar eclipses can be seen sometimes by some people on Earth.Ã‚Â  You would find amazing coincidences on whichever planet you inhabited.

I still don't see where you problem is..

The Moon is currently moving away from the Earth at 3 inches per year.Ã‚Â  However, if it has always moved 3 inches per year it would violate conservation of Energy.Ã‚Â  As the moon moves farther away it begins to slow down.Ã‚Â  Orbital dynamics tells us that it moved faster away from the Earth further back in time.Ã‚Â  Now, tidal forces between the two bodies would change but they would change gradually not abruptly so major tidal changes would only be noticeable when averaging through many many years.Ã‚Â  I would like to see how you calculated the catastrophic events you attribute to the moon's tidal forces on the Earth changing with time and distance away from the Earth.

And here just contradicted what you tried to do. Moving faster away as you say, also means that when time is wound backwards, the moon came even closer to the earth than my figures showed. I was being conservative. But if you have the formula for what you speak of. You can do the math yourself and see that back in time the moon would have been so close to the earth that life could not exist.

### #6 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

AKA st_dissent

• Veteran Member
• 683 posts
• Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
• Age: 29
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 12:25 PM

That shows how the placement most be for it to even happen.
This is because of the moon's orbit. I see no problem here.
So how does that prove or disprove anything?
The further you are away from the sun, the eclipse shadow extends further from the moon that makes the shadow.
I still don't see where you problem is..
And here just just contradicted what you tried to do. Moving faster away as you say, also means that when time is wound backwards, the moon came even closer to the earth than my figures showed. I was being conservative. But if you have the formula for what you speak of. You can do the math yourself and see that back in time the moon would have been so close to the earth that life could not exist.

Can you show me your calculations?

### #7 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2009 - 12:45 PM

Can you show me your calculations?

So let's do some math with the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon per year:

1 Foot would take 4 years.
10 feet would take 40 years.
100 feet would take 400 years.
1,000 feet would take 4,000 years.
5,280 feet (1 mile) would take 21,120 years.

We will use 21,120 years (reference) because that is the one mile movement mark for 3 inches of decay per year.

1 million years 47.35 miles closer.
2 million years 94.70 miles closer.
3 million years 142.05 miles closer.
1 billion years 47,350 miles closer.
2 billion years 94,700 miles closer.
3 billion years 142,050 miles closer.

However, if it has always moved 3 inches per year it would violate conservation of Energy.  As the moon moves farther away it begins to slow down.  Orbital dynamics tells us that it moved faster away from the Earth further back in time.  Now, tidal forces between the two bodies would change but they would change gradually not abruptly so major tidal changes would only be noticeable when averaging through many many years.

Inverse square law:

The way I understand it. If two objects have gravity, move closer to one another. That gravity pull multiplies, correct? So being what we currently see as far as tidal forces are upon our oceans. It would be easy to conclude how much more they would be with the conservative figure of the moon being 142,000 miles closer.

But you on the other hand, claim that conservation of energy law would actually make the moon even closer back in time. Which by the way, support even more of what I was posting about. So as we go back in time, the moon goes faster and faster towards the earth, correct.

But here is an interesting question. Given the conservation of energy law, what the moon is doing would soon have to even out, right? In other words, the moon's orbit would soon quit decaying outward. But because nothing can stay 100% constant all the time. The moon's orbit will eventually slow up enough to start coming back to the earth, correct? What then?

### #8 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 06 January 2009 - 01:39 PM

So let's do some math with the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon per year:

1 Foot would take 4 years.
10 feet would take 40 years.
100 feet would take 400 years.
1,000 feet would take 4,000 years.
5,280 feet (1 mile) would take 21,120 years.

We will use 21,120 years (reference) because that is the one mile movement mark for 3 inches of decay per year.

1 million years  47.35 miles closer.
2 million years  94.70 miles closer.
3 million years  142.05 miles closer.
1 billion years  47,350 miles closer.
2 billion years  94,700 miles closer.
3 billion years  142,050 miles closer.

Problem #1: The current rate of lunar recession is not 3 inches per year. It's 3.8 cm per year or roughly 1.5 inches per year. Your values are twice as large as they should be even with a constant rate.

Problem #2: The past rate of lunar recession was not a constant 3.8 cm per year. It varied due to the changing positions of the continents. For example, over the past 600 million years the average rate of recession was around 2 cm per year, which is about 4 times slower than your calculations.
The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17Ã‚Â±0.31 cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82Ã‚Â±0.07 cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging

### #9 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:21 PM

Problem #1: The current rate of lunar recession is not 3 inches per year.Ã‚Â  It's 3.8 cm per year or roughly 1.5 inches per year.Ã‚Â  Your values are twice as large as they should be even with a constant rate.

Well I guess the scientific site that I got this off of last year lied. Numbers change because they find out, as I pointed out here, that the facts don't support the theory. That is why I have learned recently to take snap shots of websites that claim things, that later change when it does not work in their favor.

Do you thik I just made this up?

Problem #2:Ã‚Â  The past rate of lunar recession was not a constant 3.8 cm per year.Ã‚Â  It varied due to the changing positions of the continents.Ã‚Â  For example, over the past 600 million years the average rate of recession was around 2 cm per year, which is about 4 times slower than your calculations.
The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17Ã‚Â±0.31 cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82Ã‚Â±0.07 cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging

Continent positions change this? Can this be tested in a lab? No? Pure speculation. Just like you would say if I had brought up that idea and said it icreased the rate. You's say: Where is our observable evidence? Now I ask that of you. People can claim and say what they like. But proof (observable evidence), or observable process makes it so.

And claiming that the continents positions change this would also mean that you also know what the source of gravity is? Well?

If continents change the strength of gravity upon an orniting object. Then this should be measurable here as well. Like your weight should be different on land that it is on the sea. Has there been any reports of this?

Also, do you actually know the exact positioning of the super continent relative to the moon's orbit? No? Speculation again.

You cannot prove someone absolutely wrong with speculations. And I did not make up the 3 inches a year idea. I had no idea what the moon's orbit decay was. And knowing that you guys don't accept anything off a creation site, where do you think I went to get the information? I might be able to find it again. And if it is still 3 inches a year, how do we determine who has the right information? Because once you choose one scientific site over another, then all the credibility of that one site goes into question.

So what would you say is the determining factor of which scientific site is right if two of them have conflicting information?

1) Is it how it supports said theory in said argument?
2) Is it who has listed the information more recently?
3) Who you consider to be more credible?
etc...
It's like the deal with selling the idea that we are 1-3% different from chimps. Now if you have a percent, then there is a number to that percent. Now why is that number hidden? It's becuase 1% = 3,000,000,000 (3 million) base pair differences. It's easier to sell evolution under the small percentage number, than it is to sell it under the real numbers.

That is one of the main reasons that numbers constantly change. 50% of the time it's due to new infomation. The other 50% of the time is to make the math conform to the accepted theory. That is why odds are now ignored concerning evolution. Odds can be work out by anyone with a little knowledge on the subject. So odds cannot be tainted like controlled information can be. Now if you don't think that science takes evidence and makes it conform to the accepted theory, then you need to watch this video.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QGzuvlfnxoY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QGzuvlfnxoY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And the reason I show this is to demonstrate that if science will do this in one area to make it support the accepted theory, why not the rest as well? And because they even tried to justify what Dr. Lovejoy did on Nova, I now very much question a lot of what comes out of science.

### #10 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:45 PM

Let's work out some math on this:

Problem #1: The current rate of lunar recession is not 3 inches per year. It's 3.8 cm per year or roughly 1.5 inches per year. Your values are twice as large as they should be even with a constant rate.

The Moon's orbit currently decays from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year, and is believed by sciene to be 4.6 billion years old. The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles ( known as the Roche Limit link*) or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.

If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles.

However, the rate of recession would not have been constant, but would have been greater in the past, so that extrapolating backwards in time results in the moon being in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago.

For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close.

Reference: http://creationonthe...nt/view/764/#r8

### #11 CTD

CTD

Banned

• Banned
• 2059 posts
• Age: 44
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Missouri

Posted 06 January 2009 - 09:05 PM

So what would you say is the determining factor of which scientific site is right if two of them have conflicting information?

1) Is it how it supports said theory in said argument?
2) Is it who has listed the information more recently?
3) Who you consider to be more credible?
etc...

Do you even have to ask? Implications First, Baby!

Sorry to interrupt, that's just too easy to predict.

### #12 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 06 January 2009 - 11:40 PM

Well I guess the scientific site that I got this off of last year lied. Numbers change because they find out, as I pointed out here, that the facts don't support the theory. That is why I have learned recently to take snap shots of websites that claim things, that later change when it does not work in their favor.

Do you thik I just made this up?

No, I think either you or the site you read got 3 inches and 3 centimeters confused.

Continent positions change this? Can this be tested in a lab? No? Pure speculation.
Just like you would say if I had brought up that idea and said it icreased the rate. You's say: Where is our observable evidence? Now I ask that of you. People can claim and say what they like. But proof (observable evidence), or observable process makes it so.

And claiming that the continents positions change this would also mean that you also know what the source of gravity is? Well?

If continents change the strength of gravity upon an orniting object. Then this should be measurable here as well. Like your weight should be different on land that it is on the sea. Has there been any reports of this?

It isn't because the force of gravity is different on land vs sea, it's because the tidal bulge that causes lunar recession is affected by the shape and location of the continents.
If the friction and heat dissipation were not present, the Moon's gravitational force on the tidal bulge would rapidly (within two days) bring the tide back into synchronization with the Moon, and the Moon would no longer recede. Most of the dissipation occurs in a turbulent bottom boundary layer in shallow seas such as the European shelf around the British Isles, the Patagonian shelf off Argentina, and the Bering Sea. An equilibrium tidal bulge does not really exist on Earth because the continents do not allow this mathematical solution to take place.

As for the site you linked to, they made a similar mistake as you, treating the current recession rate as if it were constantly decreasing and as if the current rate is the slowest it's ever been They ignore that the historical data shows that the past recession rates were much lower than they are currently. To put it simply, they model lunar recession as a curve which doesn't match the actual data.

### #13 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2009 - 11:55 PM

What historical data? I did not realize that ancient man kept records. The earliest known writting was:

Besides, NASA did not have the instruments installed on the moon long enough that allowed for accurate orbit monitoring that would make it historical data.

So who did this that would be as reliable as NASA?

### #14 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 07 January 2009 - 12:21 AM

What historical data? I did not realize that ancient man kept records. The earliest known writting was:

Besides, NASA did not have the instruments installed on the moon long enough that allowed for accurate orbit monitoring that would make it historical data.

So who did this that would be as reliable as NASA?

Would the terms geologic data or paleontological data be less confusing? There are tidal deposits which show how often tides occurred in the past and can be used to determine the lunar velocity and recession. I linked to the abstract of one of the studies done on these deposits in my first post on this topic. Some fossilized corals can also be used as a measure of lunar motion.

### #15 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

• Member
• 12500 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Interests:God, creation, etc...
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2009 - 02:02 AM

Would the terms geologic data or paleontological data be less confusing?Ã‚Â  There are tidal deposits which show how often tides occurred in the past and can be used to determine the lunar velocity and recession.Ã‚Â  I linked to the abstract of one of the studies done on these deposits in my first post on this topic.Ã‚Â  Some fossilized corals can also be used as a measure of lunar motion.

That is given that the rotation of the earth has stayed the same. Orbit of the moon compared to rotation speed of the earth would make a difference. And do you thik that the earth's rotation speed stayed the same for 4 billion years?

Besides that, water was not on the earth the whole time the moon was out there. Moon is now estimated at 4.527 billion year old (link).

Age of the earth is around 4.6 billion the last I looked (it changes every 1 or 2 years). The moon being closer would make it orbit faster. The faster orbit would pull the earth to rotate faster unless it was already doing so.

1) So were the days on the first 1-3 billion years of the earth 24 hour days (bet you never thought you'd be asked the 24 hour day question)?
2) Were the years of orbit around the sun 365-24 hour days?
3) And if the earth rotated faster, and orbited around the sun faster. Would time remain the same, or speed up also?
4) Exactly when did water appear on the earth in a quanity that it would leave the data evidence you claim got left?

It would also seem to me that if the placement of the continents affect the orbit and speed of the moon. What does a planet full of molten lava and no water do to all this? If this was not factored in, then the conclusion of the data presented is flawed.

I noticed that you skipped this part:

For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close.

Exactly what did you find wrong with it?

### #16 de_skudd

de_skudd

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1518 posts
• Location:North Augusta, SC
• Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
• Age: 41
• no affiliation
• Creationist
• North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 06:47 AM

Problem #1: The current rate of lunar recession is not 3 inches per year.  It's 3.8 cm per year or roughly 1.5 inches per year.  Your values are twice as large as they should be even with a constant rate.
Problem #2:  The past rate of lunar recession was not a constant 3.8 cm per year.  It varied due to the changing positions of the continents.  For example, over the past 600 million years the average rate of recession was around 2 cm per year, which is about 4 times slower than your calculations.
The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17Ã‚Â±0.31 cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82Ã‚Â±0.07 cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging

The above, of course, is based on assumption and not empirical science at all. How do you know Ã¢â‚¬Å“The past rate of lunar recession was not a constant 3.8 cm per yearÃ¢â‚¬Â were you there to measure it? And how could you possibly measure (with any accuracy) the effect of continental drift on the moonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s orbit (remember, you wern't there). You may be totally wrong, the drift may have had the opposite effect on the moons receding orbit.
So, my questions are these;

Where does anyone get the equations that justify a variant difference of 3.82Ã‚Â±0.07 cm per year (current) from 2 cm per year (past), if they werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t here to measure it.

Do you agree that these numbers from the past are assumptions because no one was here to measure them? If not, why not? Please be specific if you couldÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ And donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just show a link to some elseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s presuppositions, but just answer the fundamental questions. I think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have an eye openerÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

### #17 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:38 AM

That is given that the rotation of the earth has stayed the same. Orbit of the moon compared to rotation speed of the earth would make a difference. And do you thik that the earth's rotation speed stayed the same for 4 billion years?

Besides that, water was not on the earth the whole time the moon was out there. Moon is now estimated at 4.527 billion year old (link).

Age of the earth is around 4.6 billion the last I looked (it changes every 1 or 2 years). The moon being closer would make it orbit faster. The faster orbit would pull the earth to rotate faster unless it was already doing so.

1) So were the days on the first 1-3 billion years of the earth 24 hour days (bet you never thought you'd be asked the 24 hour day question)?
2) Were the years of orbit around the sun 365-24 hour days?
3) And if the earth rotated faster, and orbited around the sun faster. Would time remain the same, or speed up also?
4) Exactly when did water appear on the earth in a quanity that it would leave the data evidence you claim got left?

1) the days were shorter by several hours.
2) 600 million years ago the years contained closer to 400-22 hour days
3) the earth rotated faster, but didn't orbit around the sun significantly faster, the tidal effects of the sun are minimal. Time dilation would be negligible since the earth is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light.
4) water showed up sometime 4-5 billion years ago, the evidence showing a slower lunar recession is from one billion years ago. completely different time periods.

It would also seem to me that if the placement of the continents affect the orbit and speed of the moon. What does a planet full of molten lava and no water do to all this? If this was not factored in, then the conclusion of the data presented is flawed.

The planet was not molten lava 600 million years ago which is when the data is from, there's no impact at all on the calculations of the average recession rate over the past 600 million years.

I noticed that you skipped this part:

For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close.

Exactly what did you find wrong with it?

I didn't skip it, I told you what was wrong with it, the integral they use assumes a constant curve with the current rate as a starting point, which is not in any way reflective of reality. And after taking another look at it, because they use the current rate as a constant in their equations, if in fact the current rate is higher than it has been for a significant portion of the past, then what they calculated would not be a maximum age but in fact closer to a minimum age for the earth/moon system. Amusingly enough, they could have ended up disproving their own point.

I've tried to point out the differences between their integral and what the actual data shows.
```Their equation
Recession rate:
3.8+cm                         3.8 cm
2-0 billion years ago          present

Geologic data
Recession rates:
2cm                            3.8 cm
2-0 billion                     present```

The above, of course, is based on assumption and not empirical science at all

What exactly do you think measuring tidal deposits is if not empirical science? Taking measurements is pretty much the definition of empirical science.

Where does anyone get the equations that justify a variant difference of 3.82Ã‚Â±0.07 cm per year (current) from 2 cm per year (past), if they werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t here to measure it.
Do you agree that these numbers from the past are assumptions because no one was here to measure them? If not, why not? Please be specific if you could

I'm simplifying but the basic procedure is: First, the size and number of tidal deposits is measured, from this we can determine the quantity and size of tides. From this we can determine the velocity and distance of the moon when the tides were created. Then the current position is compared to the past position to determine an average recession rate.

Basically, the tides took the measurements, we just came along later to read them.

### #18 de_skudd

de_skudd

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1518 posts
• Location:North Augusta, SC
• Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
• Age: 41
• no affiliation
• Creationist
• North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:55 AM

What exactly do you think measuring tidal deposits is if not empirical science? Taking measurements is pretty much the definition of empirical science.

The empirical science began, when you began taking the measurements. All the information extrapolated for periods prior to that time are built upon presupposition. Taking measurements is only part of the definition of empirical science.

I'm simplifying but the basic procedure is: First, the size and number of tidal deposits is measured, from this we can determine the quantity and size of tides.  From this we can determine the velocity and distance of the moon when the tides were created.  Then the current position is compared to the past position to determine an average recession rate.
Basically, the tides took the measurements, we just came along later to read them.

Can you somehow measure the tides back to the beginning of tides (that would be a great trick)? Or did you actually travel back in time to take the measurements (even a neater trick)?Can you somehow sustain this idea in a logical and substantive form of argumentative thought?

### #19 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 07 January 2009 - 11:19 AM

The empirical science began, when you began taking the measurements. All the information extrapolated for periods prior to that time are built upon presupposition.  Taking measurements is only part of the definition of empirical science.
Can you somehow measure the tides back to the beginning of tides (that would be a great trick)? Or did you actually travel back in time to take the measurements (even a neater trick)?Can you somehow sustain this idea in a logical and substantive form of argumentative thought?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, the study I linked to provided values for lunar recession over the past 600 million years. These values are based on 600 million year old tidal deposits. Nowhere have I said anything about lunar recession rates prior to those dates. I simply pointed out that ikesters calculations and the site he linked to assumed the 3.8 cm/year value was either constant or the lowest it's ever been while actual measurements show that the rate has been significantly lower in the past.

### #20 de_skudd

de_skudd

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1518 posts
• Location:North Augusta, SC
• Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
• Age: 41
• no affiliation
• Creationist
• North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 12:33 PM

I'm not sure what you are talking about, the study I linked to provided values for lunar recession over the past 600 million years.  These values are based on 600 million year old tidal deposits.  Nowhere have I said anything about lunar recession rates prior to those dates.  I simply pointed out that ikesters calculations and the site he linked to assumed the 3.8 cm/year value was either constant or the lowest it's ever been while actual measurements show that the rate has been significantly lower in the past.

Sooooooooooooo, they (or you) were here 600 million years ago to observe these things happen?

You are overlooking the entire presuppositional aspects of the "science" you're supporting....

Other than a priori thought, can you empirically prove the measurements he quoted as wrong? Or are you just positing an opinion that it might be wrong according to conclusions drawn from something you have not observed?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users