Jump to content


Photo

Does The Moon Disprove Evolution Timeline?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#21 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 07 January 2009 - 01:35 PM

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?

View Post


Prove what measurements wrong? The only measurements posted in this thread are the current rate, which isn't in dispute, and a past rate which is what I posted. The only other thing ikester quoted was a simple integral that made the assumption that the current rate is the slowest the moon has ever receded from the earth. The tidal record shows that assumption to be incorrect. Is there some creationist measurement of lunar recession that I've missed?

#22 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 05:28 PM

Prove what measurements wrong? The only measurements posted in this thread are the current rate, which isn't in dispute, and a past rate which is what I posted.  The only other thing ikester quoted was a simple integral that made the assumption that the current rate is the slowest the moon has ever receded from the earth.  The tidal record shows that assumption to be incorrect.  Is there some creationist measurement of lunar recession that I've missed?

View Post


You are missing the point altogether (although you did tell ikester his calculations was incorrect and therefore you have the correct ones), you are using the assumption that your calculations from pre-recorded history are correct. You can in no-way prove that assumption because; first-You weren’t around to make the observations and second- You have absolutely no idea what, if any, outside influences may have effected those measurements that you weren’t around to make.

The tidal records may show that ASSUMPTION might be correct, or it might not! It is nothing more then a best guess scenario because you have no way of proving your assumption.

So, therefore, you are taking a "Blind Leap of Faith" on the calculations to prove your world view is correct.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:10 PM

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.
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 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
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.

View Post


Without going into detail, which seems to make no difference. It looks like that the theory equation changes to fit the need to make another theory workable, In one instance you speed everything up. In another instance, you slow it all down (changing laws that exist to suit the need to be right on every issue).

So, since NASA, and science publishing sites are better than individual sites where individual ideas (your evidence and equations) are put up. I suggest a more creditable source. The reason I ask this is because I know that teachers and professors are given website spaces to post their own ideas whether proven or not. And that link you used falls into that category and I consider it no better than a page of opinions written on the wikipedia by several people who happen to agree with one another on the subject.

Because if these findings you posted and left a link to were so creditable, would not this evidence be on a more credible site?

Because if you consider such sources credible, I can show you a edu site that has creation stuff from a secular university. Put up by a teacher-professor who is a creationist. Does that make those claims credible? No more than it makes the other ones you use.

#24 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:41 PM

You are missing the point altogether (although you did tell ikester his calculations was incorrect and therefore you have the correct ones), you are using the assumption that your calculations from pre-recorded history are correct. You can in no-way prove that assumption because; first-You weren’t around to make the observations and second- You have absolutely no idea what, if any, outside influences may have effected those measurements that you weren’t around to make.

The tidal records may show that ASSUMPTION might be correct, or it might not! It is nothing more then a best guess scenario because you have no way of proving your assumption.

So, therefore, you are taking a "Blind Leap of Faith" on the calculations to prove your world view is correct.

View Post


This is getting into the realm of philosophy of science so all I'm going to say is that most people accept that it's possible for past events to be known even if no-one was there watching the events happen. If you aren't one of these people then feel free to call it an assumption/blind leap of faith/whatever you want.

Getting back on topic to the moon, do you have a better source for past recession rates than the one I linked. If you do could you provide it and a description of how these rates were determined. I'd be happy to discuss something related to physics or math on this topic, but philosophy issues like whether direct observation is necessary bore me to tears.

#25 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:54 PM

Without going into detail, which seems to make no difference. It looks like that the theory equation changes to fit the need to make another theory workable, In one instance you speed everything up. In another instance, you slow it all down (changing laws that exist to suit the need to be right on every issue).

So, since NASA, and science publishing sites are better than individual sites where individual ideas (your evidence and equations) are put up. I suggest a more creditable source. The reason I ask this is because I know that teachers and professors are given website spaces to post their own ideas whether proven or not. And that link you used falls into that category and I consider it no better than a page of opinions written on the wikipedia by several people who happen to agree with one another on the subject.

Because if these findings you posted and left a link to were so creditable, would not this evidence be on a more credible site?

Because if you consider such sources credible, I can show you a edu site that has creation stuff from a secular university. Put up by a teacher-professor who is a creationist. Does that make those claims credible? No more than it makes the other ones you use.

View Post

What I posted was the abstract of the actual paper that was published in a geology journal, not just a personal site.

Here's a link to the actual American Geophysics Union journal it was published in. You can get the entire paper in pdf format by clicking the link on the left of the page
http://www.agu.org/j...1/1999RG900016/

If you have a source showing different values for past lunar recession feel free to present it. It would be helpful if you are able to explain how your source arrived at the rates and what time period they are for.

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2009 - 11:53 PM

Review means it's still in review, correct?

Also, as I looked through all this. It started to remind me of the annual rings in ice cores. Which can be easily debunked because ice does not go dormant every year like trees do. Rings can be formed from temps going above freezing, then back below freezing. Winter does not equal a season of continuing freezing until summer comes along.

I looked through all my link sources, either the page has changed. Or the site itself no longer exists or moved. But I will correct the figures on my site to reflect the difference using a variance as a means to show it was not constant.

I also found this anumated gif quite interesting.

Attached File  orbit.gif   8.71KB   6 downloads

It demonstrates how the pull of the moon affects the orbit of the earth. And to ponder it getting closer, then applying inverse square law among other things mentioned here. You soon figure out that if the pull is increased to much, there is going to be a problem.

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:59 PM

This is getting into the realm of philosophy of science so all I'm going to say is that most people accept that it's possible for past events to be known even if no-one was there watching the events happen.  If you aren't one of these people then feel free to call it an assumption/blind leap of faith/whatever you want.

View Post


The first thing you should understand is that the scientific method is a derivative of logic and philosophy. Without either of the first two, there would be no science (or very bad science, and I don’t think you want that). Secondly, just because “most people accept” something as truth, it doesn’t make that thing correct or true; scientifically, philosophically or logically! Witness the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, or Hitler’s Nazi Germany (just to name a few). The most sincerely honest person can be sincerely and honestly incorrect (especially when it comes to making a decision on factors they cannot prove due to incomplete information). Thirdly, there is no empirically scientific method to account for the assumed millions, or billions of unrecorded [and therefore unobserved] years posited by any presupposed calculations; therefore that opinion becomes just that (nothing more than a presupposition. And that my friend begs the very question). Fourthly, you cannot separate logic and philosophy from science because you have to use them both when conducting true scientific experiments. You don’t conduct any scientific experiment without using a set of logically arranged steps in order to come to a conclusion (to prove or disprove). And you have to use (at least) basic philosophic concepts such as reality and causality (etc…) in order to perform those experiments as well. You cannot take either those for granted (philosophy or logic), because we use them in every day life (including the scientific method).

Therefore, to make a statement like “This is getting into the realm of philosophy of science”, and thus sweep it aside as an unneeded quantity, is sweeping all of science aside as well. And I don’t think you intended to do such….


Getting back on topic to the moon, do you have a better source for past recession rates than the one I linked.  If you do could you provide it and a description of how these rates were determined.  I'd be happy to discuss something related to physics or math on this topic, but philosophy issues like whether direct observation is necessary bore me to tears.

View Post


Everyone has “a better source for past recession rates” for the unknown, and consequently, everyone has as valid a set of calculations for that unknown (even if they just make them up). Because they are simply unobserved (and as a result, completely knocking the empiricism out of those equations). So, when you state that your recession rates are correct, and the other person is incorrect (BTW, in order to do this, you are being dogmatic and absolute in doing so), you are being neither rational nor scientific. You are being neither “free thinking”, nor scientifically reasoning, because true scientific reasoning rules out nothing and explores ALL possibilities.


Real science uses either/or logic (the Law of Non-contradiction), and the philosophy that spawned it, in order to prove or disprove any hypothesis or theory. Either its right or it’s wrong! Either it works or it doesn’t…. All science related to physics or math on this topic and any other scientific issue, is based on philosophy and logic. So, if it bores you, this is an issue you might need to resolve using reasoning and systematic examination, to find a correct conclusion…. But, there again, you’d be using philosophy and logic to do so….

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 January 2009 - 04:08 AM

Here is an example of how precise the placement and sizes of the sun moon and eart are to get this result.

Attached File  earth10.jpg   6.9KB   47 downloads

Attached File  earth8.jpg   9.66KB   29 downloads

To be able to totally cover the sun just enough so we can see the outer atmosphere of the sun. The flash video below explains it better.



#29 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 15 January 2009 - 05:57 AM

Here is an example of how precise the placement and sizes of the sun moon and eart are to get this result.

Attached File  earth10.jpg   6.9KB   47 downloads

Attached File  earth8.jpg   9.66KB   29 downloads

To be able to totally cover the sun just enough so we can see the outer atmosphere of the sun. The flash video below explains it better.


View Post


Basically what you’re saying here is, as time progresses forward and the moon moves further from the earth, we’ll be able to see more of the sun surrounding the outline of the moon during an eclipse? This would infer that thousands of years ago, a total eclipse really meant that darkness covered the earth!


Just a thought….. :rolleyes:

#30 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2009 - 11:37 PM

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.



was that integral done correctly???

#31 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:24 AM

Reading this older post I find it quite amusing.

Here we have creationists using the current measured "moon recession" rate and insisting that this should be used as a constant throughout history, because its the only truly "observed" measurement.

Yet when scientest's invoke the same "uniformitarianism" principle for other processes such as continental drift, sediment depoistion rates its not allowed as of course these rates were supposidly higher in the past :-)

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:39 AM

Reading this older post I find it quite amusing.

Here we have creationists using the current measured "moon recession" rate and insisting that this should be used as a constant throughout history, because its the only truly "observed" measurement.

Yet when scientest's invoke the same "uniformitarianism" principle for other processes such as continental drift, sediment depoistion rates its not allowed as of course these rates were supposidly higher in the past :-)

View Post


Hi pdw709,

It's because those methods are proven flawed.

How many millions of years of sedimentation did it take to burry this car?

Posted Image

If we saw the moon jump 120 miles in a single day,then you might have a case.



Thanks

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:44 AM

Reading this older post I find it quite amusing.

Here we have creationists using the current measured "moon recession" rate and insisting that this should be used as a constant throughout history, because its the only truly "observed" measurement.

Yet when scientest's invoke the same "uniformitarianism" principle for other processes such as continental drift, sediment depoistion rates its not allowed as of course these rates were supposidly higher in the past :-)

View Post

What this does, is demonstrate how evolutionists cherry pick their data. What we do, is apply your thinking to other observations and show how similar extrapolations will defy the evolution paradigm. It also shows how evolution has arbitrarily pre-limited boundaries, that define what data will be accepted based on support of preconceived ideas rather than letting your ideas be shaped by the evidence. This is a classic example of what a pseudoscience looks like.

It's sad when an evolutionist can't see their own reasoning used against them and additionally laughs at it as though it is hypocrisy. :blink:

Pdw709, let us know when you can see past the nose on your face. :huh:

#34 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 08:40 AM

It also shows how evolution has arbitrarily pre-limited boundaries, that define what data will be accepted based on support of preconceived ideas rather than letting your ideas be shaped by the evidence.


You mean like starting with the assumption that the bible is 100% true and working backwards to find the evidence that supports it whilst disregarding everything else?

It's sad when an evolutionist can't see their own reasoning used against them and additionally laughs at it as though it is hypocrisy. :blink:

Pdw709, let us know when you can see past the nose on your face. ;)

View Post


Believe me, I can see perfectly well (with my evolved human eyes)

Actually I was criticising YOUR assuptions and YOUR logic. On one hand you insist on using only hard observable data (i.e. the current moon recession rate) yet on the other you ignore the hard measurable data of current continental plate drift.

If Geologists can provide evidence for different rates in the past then they are quite happy to adopt them, but by your own admission only rates that are observable and measurable TODAY are counted as "science", and therefore only those can be used. So why do you still insist on vastly increased rates of plate movement (runaway subduction?) in the past.

Unfortunately, this is a flaw in YOUR logic :huh:

#35 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 08:42 AM

Hi pdw709,

It's because those methods are proven flawed.

How many millions of years of sedimentation did it take to burry this car?

Posted Image

If we saw the moon jump 120 miles in a single day,then you might have a case.
Thanks

View Post


Fortunately, geologists can differientiate between rapid burial deposits and slow background ones. :blink:

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 11:38 AM

You mean like starting with the assumption that the bible is 100% true and working backwards to find the evidence that supports it whilst disregarding everything else?

View Post

The day all sides admit their biases will be wonderful. I gladly admit that my worldview heeds submission to God's Word even when I'm uncertain.

Here is the kicker, the true hypocrisy comes from evolutionists when they insist that their beliefs are scientific when they are founded on anti-scientific principles. They insist that their beliefs require no faith when they are willingly ignorant of the mountains of loose speculations that they believe in a blind uncritical manner. When an evolutionist starts to recognize their own biases they are usually close to abandoning their naturalistic fundamentalism.

Pdw709, we all harbor biases. The difference is that I admit mine. Will you admit yours? Will you admit your beliefs that are religious in nature and not scientific? Will you admit those beliefs that are fundamentally philosophically driven and not necessarily driven by the facts? Will you?

As for your prior responses, you're doing a fine job demonstrating to onlookers that you are avoiding what we are demonstrating. Good day.

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 12:08 PM

Fortunately, geologists can differientiate between rapid burial deposits and slow background ones. :blink:

View Post

Would vast fossil beds, with numerous layers, qualify as rapid burial deposits or slow background ones?

#38 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:13 PM

Would vast fossil beds, with numerous layers, qualify as rapid burial deposits or slow background ones?

View Post


Both actually. It depends on the type of rock. Limestones can be composed of nothing but fossils (bio-clastic limestone, chalk etc) but they still represent slow sedimenattion rates. On he other hand fossil assembledges such as the Burgess shale represent a sudden influx of mudstone which effectively "drowns" the ocean floor and preserves a "mass death" assembledge. As usual the real world is not as black and white and simple as you believe (wish) it to be.

#39 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:21 PM

The day all sides admit their biases will be wonderful. I gladly admit that my worldview heeds submission to God's Word even when I'm uncertain.

Here is the kicker, the true hypocrisy comes from evolutionists when they insist that their beliefs are scientific when they are founded on anti-scientific principles. They insist that their beliefs require no faith when they are willingly ignorant of the mountains of loose speculations that they believe in a blind uncritical manner. When an evolutionist starts to recognize their own biases they are usually close to abandoning their naturalistic fundamentalism.

Pdw709, we all harbor biases. The difference is that I admit mine. Will you admit yours? Will you admit your beliefs that are religious in nature and not scientific? Will you admit those beliefs that are fundamentally philosophically driven and not necessarily driven by the facts? Will you?

As for your prior responses, you're doing a fine job demonstrating to onlookers that you are avoiding what we are demonstrating. Good day.

View Post


I'm sorry, but please do not tar me with your imperfect brush. I have reached my atheistic position because I have looked at the evidence. I did not start out with a bias in my thinking. I am willing to look at all evidence and as a Scientist I am willing to change my views when presented with solid evidence. My view along with that of 99% of all other Atheists is not that I KNOW there is no god (for that would be impossible to prove), but simply that it is highly unlikely given the evidence presented. Would I like there to be a heaven? Sure why not - sounds like fun. But that does'nt mean it exists. You may find this hard to believe, but I am a major skeptic about most things in life - I simply like to see the evidence rather than be told something is true.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:52 PM

You may find this hard to believe, but I am a major skeptic about most things in life - I simply like to see the evidence rather than be told something is true.

View Post

Skepticism is a funny thing because it is not foundational. I believe it was Norman Geisler who recognized the problem of making skepticism foundational to an approach to claims. Basically, skepticism works like a deburring tool with a foundation already in place, skepticism used properly is a great tool, but you can't stand on skepticism because it only works when it is rooted in a proper worldview.

Also, a true skeptic, to be consistent must be able to take the following charge offered by Dallas Willard...

"If we want to be intellectually honest skeptics, we must be as skeptical about our skepticism as we are about our knowledge."

You see, you tell us that your atheistic perspective is open to the evidence but you've already demonstrated numerous times that simply isn't true. I'm not trying to be rude but I guarantee that others see your biases at work as well. You aren't hiding them that well. :blink:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users