Debunking the Creationist Earth-Moon separation nonsense.

Thanks for that Eta. It is, among other things, an example for some who need a good example of the kind of thing you have to do to actually have an argument.Can you tell me where the weakest (most iffy, most sensitive) parts of the calculation are? What would be your error bars on the calculated values?Have you ever received any kind of literalist response? Let me guess: No! Or if you have it would amount to (in a lot of words ) "Huh?"

quote:

---

One of them was basically:
Well if that is how physics is - I want no part of it - I'm glad I never studied it!

---

Somehow that is about what I would expect. And these are the people who think they have a place in the science classroom.For the literalists who might have gotten past the OP. You should note that an attitude like the example given is some of the source of irritation with those who think they have any right to make statements on scientific subjects.For those who are somewhat less dogmatic, you might note that this is a very, very, very, very simple example of real physics. Untill the creation "scientists" of ICR (and others) are prepared to deal with it all at this level they have no right at all to be expected to be taken seriously.

There are some issues which require a detailed analysis. This often involves actual quantitative work. Full details of the calculations are required. If someone is unable to handle the math involved then they have no valid opinion on the correctness of the result.In this case, if a literalist wants to use the moon distance argument they must point out the flaws in Eta's calculations.It is the responibility of anyone attempting to use this argument to be honest about it. Those who continue to use it when they can't answer the analysis given are not being honest.Some here have noticed that there are posters who attempt to baffle with bullshit. It doesn't seem to be working very well.

We aren't talking about cosmology here. We are talking about the earth-moon classical, celestial mechanics.As far as cosmology goes: Until someone can do a lot more good math on the "opinions" they will remain speculative just as you say. The state of these ideas is understood to be somewhat (or a lot) speculative. They are not, however, just whatever anyone wants to make up.My third year math-physics prof used to do "cosmology" for fun. He said that was because no one could prove you wrong. That, however, was a long time ago. Now a lot can be proved wrong. You don't get to make up your own anymore. We know way too much.

I don't understand your point. Eta was simply saying that it doesn't matter how the moon formed to debunk the moon recession issue.Are you disagreeing or not?

At the same time eta suggest you have something in your comments. I really don't know what is right.