Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 121 of 222 (528622)
10-06-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Go ahead
Evidence and explanations have already been given. Take a look at this site.
He ignored the fact that I gave that very site address and their formula in the topic post.
But if you would like to see just one of my sources:
The moon's recession and age - creation.com
A rather complete discussion of the whole issue.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 2:31 PM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 2:52 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 122 of 222 (528623)
10-06-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Go ahead
You still haven't given me the observed evidence that I have asked for. Where is the observed evidence of this power of Jesus Christ and his being a witness to the creation of the Universe according to the Bible?
Let me turn that around on you: "Remember, right now your explanation for the moons is, 'nature did it'.
I know by evidence how the moon got into place in orbit around the Earth. However the moon was formed (probably through the same process that formed the planets,) a Mars-sized object crashed into the Earth. The surface material was either ejected into space or transferred to the Earth. What mostly remained was the rocky core underneath. Because of the impact, the object we now call the moon ricocheted back into space at a reduced velocity (basic physics here.) The object was moving slow enough to be captured into orbit by Earth's gravity and thus we have our moon.
Now the moon was a lot closer to the Earth in the past. But because of a complex interaction of forces, some of which involved resistance of liquids, namely our ocean, gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy was transferred to our moon, speeding up the orbital speed. As an object orbits faster, it tends to move into an orbit farther away. The faster it orbits, the faster it moves away. Thus, the moon, in the beginning, was receding slower than it is now.
But you won't consider this argument because it violates your belief that "God did it" for which you still haven't shown any observable evidence of.
Edited by Izanagi, : changed observation to evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:31 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:55 PM Izanagi has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 123 of 222 (528624)
10-06-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 2:21 PM


Re: Go ahead
Give me observed evidence of this power and that Jesus was there during the creation. Is there a photo that I can look at, you know, with the Universe being created in the background and God and Jesus in the foreground giving two thumbs up?
I can do that NOW. But it would be off topic & since I got suspended several times last week for getting off topic, I won't do it now. I will do this when I go to the theology thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 2:21 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:14 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2009 4:36 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 124 of 222 (528625)
10-06-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 2:37 PM


Re: Go ahead
quote:
But if you would like to see just one of my sources:
The moon's recession and age - creation.com
A rather complete discussion of the whole issue.
Am I the only one that has a problem with this "source", considering that the first sentence in the second paragraph starts out with "According to Genesis 1:14—18, God spoke the moon into existence as a unique celestial body on Day 4 of the Creation Week." ?
I'm sure Hindu origin mythologies have some explanation for the moon. Let's do a little thought experiment. How could we compare the Hindu "moon origin myth" to the Christian "moon origin myth" with any measure of fairness or equality? Any ideas? Well, the answer is we can't because they would both proceed from a statement in an ancient text which in no way constitutes (even remotely) any form of evidence (direct or inferred) upon which we can proceed. Science doesn't have this problem. We can debate (quite heatedly) the origins of the moon, fully accepting in advance that we might never know for sure, but ideas here and there can be dismissed based on new evidence etc.
Your source is getting a read at this moment (grudgingly) by myself, even though I REALLY struggled to get past the "day 4 of the Creation Week" thing. What nonsense lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:37 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:05 PM Briterican has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 125 of 222 (528627)
10-06-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 2:45 PM


Re: Go ahead
I know by observation how the moon got into place in orbit around the Earth. However the moon was formed (probably through the same process that formed the planets,) a Mars-sized object crashed into the Earth. The surface material was either ejected into space or transferred to the Earth. What mostly remained was the rocky core underneath. Because of the impact, the object we now call the moon ricocheted back into space at a reduced velocity (basic physics here.) The object was moving slow enough to be captured into orbit by Earth's gravity and thus we have our moon.
I asked for an observation, not an opinion.
The moon did not make itself, develop slowly, or spring forth from another object: it was created by Almighty God, the creator of the heavens and the earth. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 2:45 PM Izanagi has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


(1)
Message 126 of 222 (528629)
10-06-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:58 PM


Re: Go ahead
YAY! More special pleading from Calypsis4!
But moving on, show us how this:
Evolved into this:
Give an observed example.
Unless you plan to do the exact same and show HOW this:
created this:
and give an observed example. Stop demanding it of your opponents. Do you believe this is an honest tactic to use?? Come on!
Do you even know when you use special pleading? Because it is a clear case in all of your topics so far.
Also it is probably a good idea to address the whole "why is k constant" issue. We know why it is constant for your equation. But why is k a constant in the first place? What observations verify k as a constant?
You can only ignore this for so long before everyone reading realizes that you just don't have an answer for it. I for one plodded along in this thread hoping you would answer the question. Please do. I don't want to have to read another thread where you ignore the meat of everyone's posts to address non-issues.
Edited by Dman, : No reason given.
Edited by Dman, : Clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:58 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:16 PM Dman has replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 127 of 222 (528631)
10-06-2009 3:03 PM


From your "source":
quote:
Reconstructing ancient continental configurations is ‘exceedingly difficult’,64,65 yet attempts have continued to link plate tectonics with past oceanic energy dissipation.66,67 From a creationist perspective, doubts exist about whether plate tectonics has occurred in the conventional sense.68
Not a surprise. Geologists and scientists in general were slow on the uptake regarding plate tectonics. No surprise that creationsts would be even slower.
quote:
Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value.
Ok that's just laughable hehehe. 6,000 years ago the dog was first being domesticated. Not surprising that a lot of creationists do NOT agree with this view, as you must throw out pretty much every shred of evidence we've accumulated to come to a conclusion of 6,000 years.
I honestly can't read any more hehe. I feel as though I am reading some sort of "The Onion of Science".

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 3:11 PM Briterican has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 128 of 222 (528632)
10-06-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Briterican
10-06-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Go ahead
Am I the only one that has a problem with this "source", considering that the first sentence in the second paragraph starts out with "According to Genesis 1:14—18, God spoke the moon into existence as a unique celestial body on Day 4 of the Creation Week." ?
I am having problems with that reply. You ASSUME scripture is not divine because there are competing religions in the world? Never mind the fact that Jesus Christ had many witnesses to his resurrection from the dead and that Christianity would not even exist in our day if He had not lived up to His promise to raise from the dead. Luke 9:22. He made this promise many times and had He broken that promise his distraught disciples who experienced the loss of their leader a the crucifixion (and many quit!) would never have gone out and spread the Word of Jesus...still less die a martyr's death for him as all of them did.
Now, back to the moon. I am still waiting for someone to give evidence that the moon developed slowly from gases or from other celestial objects.
How did this:
Become this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 2:52 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 3:13 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 134 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 3:21 PM Calypsis4 has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 129 of 222 (528634)
10-06-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Go ahead
I have read that talkorigins.org article about a year ago, I know the other side of the debate.
And I don't understand you explanation of it. ''Because of the complex interaction of forces, energy is being created'' .. energy being created, hey. You should maybe use better terminology
The only reason why the moon is receeding is because the tide creates friction with the earth, which in turn causes the earth's rotation to slow down, and because the angular momentum must be conserved, the moon's own angular momentum increases, and this is why it is moving 'away' from the earth.
In the past, the moon would have been closer to the earth, and so its gravitationnal pull on the water would have been greater, meaning there would have been greater friction between the earth and the ocean, meaning that, given the same earth then as now, the moon would have actually receded faster in the past. (see the third diagram on the lin you gave, or the diagram here: Lunar Recession | Answers in Genesis )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 2:31 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:29 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 139 by jacortina, posted 10-06-2009 3:32 PM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 130 of 222 (528635)
10-06-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Briterican
10-06-2009 3:03 PM


This is kidn of ironic, considering the first to propose plate tectonics (or at least, that the continents moved) was a creationist ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 3:03 PM Briterican has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 131 of 222 (528638)
10-06-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Go ahead
As Dman so eloquently pointed out, you are using special pleading, a logical fallacy. How are we meant to engage in a logical discussion if you are not bound by logic?
You can keep pasting your little jpegs all day long, and it doesn't get any of us closer to suddenly deciding to throw reason and logic out the window and jump onto the bandwagon with you and Jesus.
I'd suggest this thread be closed purely on the basis that you are spouting religious dogma instead of addressing the interesting question that you posed in the first place, that of the origins of retrograde motion. You continue to ignore the questions we put to you, you repeatedly engage in special pleading, and you continue with your little jpeg game. Wanna know how I can turn that first picture into that last? Photoshop. Wanna know how gas cloads coalesce into solar systems? Go back to school (and not in Kansas).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:05 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 132 of 222 (528639)
10-06-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Go ahead
I can do that NOW. But it would be off topic & since I got suspended several times last week for getting off topic, I won't do it now. I will do this when I go to the theology thread.
I believe showing observed evidence how your belief is on-topic for this discussion. You said God put the moon in place. I want you to show observed evidence of it. You said Jesus saw it. Then you need to show observed evidence that Jesus was there to see it (since I can't really ask him myself.) If you can show observed evidence for either one and are willing to subject your evidence to falsification, then your contention that "God did it" will carry more weight, at least with me.
And to address your other point about wanting observation and not opinions, many of the lunar rocks were tested for composition and found to have oxygen isotope compositions which are nearly the same as the Earth. The fact that rocks on the moon have the same oxygen isotope compositions that are nearly the same as on Earth is suggestive of an early life collision between the two bodies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:49 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:28 PM Izanagi has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 133 of 222 (528641)
10-06-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dman
10-06-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Go ahead
Unless you plan to do the exact same and show HOW this:
created this:
I can, but not on this venue. Anything I say on this website can be and will be placed in question.
you can only ignore this for so long before everyone reading realizes that you just don't have an answer for it. I for one plodded along in this thread hoping you would answer the question. Please do. I don't want to have to read another thread where you ignore the meat of everyone's posts to address non-issues.
You aren't telling the truth. I answered the question more than once but it is ignored. I not only explained it myself but I pointed the readers to the experts who developed the formula. Here is yet another:
The Age of the Universe, Part 2 | Answers in Genesis
Now don't pester me with that useless question again because the issues are addressed in full by those who wrote the articles!
If any of you truly cared to get all the answers you would do what I have done: telephone the scientists who wrote the articles. I have personally talked to Dr. DeYoung, Dr. Larry Vardiman, and even Henry Morris when he was still alive so I could get it 'straight from the horses mouth'. So if you don't think my answers are sufficient then go the distance and call them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dman, posted 10-06-2009 2:56 PM Dman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by dokukaeru, posted 10-06-2009 3:29 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 153 by Dman, posted 10-06-2009 4:08 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 134 of 222 (528642)
10-06-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Go ahead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1AXbpYndGc&feature=fvw
Decent video that addresses your little jpeg game. Give it a look, or just ignore it and post the jpegs again (my money is on the latter).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:05 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:31 PM Briterican has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 135 of 222 (528643)
10-06-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Go ahead
I can show you part of it but you won't accept it.
1. (this part will have to be shown off EvC. Can't do it here.)
2. Stong nuclear force. It is literally God's Almighty power holding all things together. ('upholding all things by the word of His power' Hebrews 1;3).
3. The Word of God. Jesus Christ, the most truthful person who ever lived, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6. If you don't take His word for it then we can never come to an agreement. I trust Him implicitly.
Now get back to answering my question: How did the moon develop by natural processes into what it is now? How did ANY of the moons or planets that they orbit develop by slow and gradual means. Do you have an observation for such a thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:14 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 3:48 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024