Moons: their origin, age, & recession

quote:

---

yet to produce a single observed example of a planet or a moon being formed?

---

Try looking real carefully at a picture of our moon, or of Mercury. See those ring-things peppered all over them? Them's craters. These bodies have got lots and lots of them. That's because even though impacts are fairly rare events now, they were much more common just after the solar system formed, an era called the late heavy bombardment. How do we know that? A few reasons.1.) Crater counting. The older a body is, the more craters it will have, unless geological processes erase the evidence. We can also tell the relative ages of craters when they are superimposed:

This is on Mars.

Impacts aren't very common today, so where did all those craters come from? Once we have a starting point, such as radiometric ages for lunar rocks (hello, how many times has Onifre mentioned this?), then crater counting is a simple technique to use.2.) Observed protoplanetary discs, which are what the nebular hypothesis predicted we'd find, and how our own solar system is likely to have begun. There is evidence that as they age (and become plain ol' planetary disks), there are significant collisions within them: Source

quote:

---

The Castor co-moving group of stars containing Vega and Fomalhaut has recently been isolated. Using data from the Hipparcos satellite telescope the Castor group was found to have an estimated age of 200 100 million years. This indicates that the infrared excesses seen around Vega and Fomalhaut are likely due to a disk of debris from colliding planetesimals rather than a protoplanetary disk. Successful imaging of Fomalhaut's disk by the Hubble Space Telescope confirms this.

---

Thing is, the collisions (and moon captures) are more likely to happen when there is lots of stuff floating around. There are other possible contributing factors to this as well, in the case of our solar system, such as the migration or destruction of planets.If you look around though, the very things you're claiming to be a little bit funny (or whatever) are evidence of the tumultuous past of our solar system: retrograde moons in eccentric orbits, the extreme tilt of Uranus, possibly the very slow retrograde rotation of Venus, etc.The question to you is, when the evidence is so strong that this is how it happened, how can you show that Goddidit, and why? Would it be because . . . he likes to spend his time watching planets rotate backwards or something?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

You would have thought so, wouldn't you... Not if you want to apply your calculations to earlier times, as has been explained.If you dispute this, please explain how your calculations take into account the varying time-period of the tidal bulge?

"When astronaut Frank Borman returned from his unforgettable Christmas, 1968, flight around the moon with Apollo 8, he was told that a Soviet Cosmonaut recently returned from a space flight had commented that he had seen neither God nor angels on his flight. Had Borman seen God? the reporter inquired. Frank Borman replied, 'No, I did not see Him either, but I saw His evidence."WERNHER VON BRAUNIn the same way, I have seen His evidence. More than that I have seen His power. There is no mythology about it. I can't describe that here so get back on the topic.How do you explain the retrograde orbits of so many moons of the solar system?

Yes. What's you're point? Thank you, but again, WHY does DeYoung feel it's a constant when there is a concensus that it is NOT a constant?Again I'll ask, WHY does DeYoung present it as a constant?What's his reason for it being a constant when it is understood that it is NOT a constant?DeYoung is assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year... Why is that...?The way I understand it, the further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become, but it wasn't always at that rate, nor is the rate constant. Now, where am I wrong - and why is DeYoung's assumtion right? Please explain...That's the evidence I've been asking for, will you continue to evade that question?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Calypsis, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A UNIVERSE CREATED BY A GOD.YOU ARE ENGAGED IN SPECIAL PLEADING.WHAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Why are these such a problem for you? They aren't for planetary scientists...I have never seen such a desperate need for gaps into which you can squeeze your deity...

Plugging gaps is right. I can't get beyond the fact that creationists start their journey of exploration with a preconceived notion, that of a divine creator, which influences every tiny turn they take along the way.Scientists, though oftentimes guilty of approaching a problem from their own particular angle, do NOT have this horrifying blasphemous feeling if something flies in the face of their data. They re-evaluate, they go back to the drawing board, and they let the evidence take them where it may.

Hello again. Once again we cross paths and once again we are not even on the same page.Answer: And if, in the past, there were meteoric showers like this one... striking the 'atmosphericless' moon and if there were several such occurrences on the moon over the last several milleniums then the time frame of evolutionary cosmology concerning the moon is blown out of the water.I would suggest you read my posts on the volcanic activity that has been repeatedly sighted by credible witnesses over the centuries. My evidence is based on observation. Yours is not. The moon is not 4.6 billion yrs old. Not even close.

quote:

---

How do you explain the retrograde orbits of so many moons of the solar system?

---

Triton is the only large moon with a retrograde orbit, and it is thought to be thus because it is believed that Triton was captured from the Kuiper Belt rather than developing slowly along with Neptune and its other moons.I can tell you this. One explanation that does NOT leap to mind is "God made it that way".

I believe cosmic evolution is a bit different than the Theory of Evolution. Hence the adjective, cosmic. They were talking about how the cosmos developed from beginning to what we see now through the interaction of physical forces. Despite the use of the word evolution, those are two different concepts.And once again you are suggesting that one scientist is equal to another. You are arguing cosmology, and the moons in particular. Evolution is the study of how living things develop over time. Comparing the moons of the solar system to the evolution of living things is like comparing apples to oranges and lumping cosmologists who study those fields in with biologists who study evolution only serves to confuse the issue. Remember, the study of the Cosmos is a different field than the study of Evolution.That said, I think cavediver dealt with your point with the moon quite nicely. I think someone else posted this site, but I'll post it again just in case you missed it. Talk Origins has a fantastic little explanation for the recession of the moon. Basically, it states that the moon's recession has been slower in the past because the moon has been gaining energy from the friction caused by the rotation of the Earth. As the Earth rotates, it generates friction against the bottom of the oceans and the ocean floor. A lot of that energy is transferred to the oceans, but some is transferred to the moon as the moon and earth are in the same "system." This transfer of energy causes the moon to speed up its orbit and as the moon speeds up, it recedes farther out from earth. This is why the moon's recession is faster now than it was in the past.

How about giving us the "Princeton astronomers" name.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"Science and religion are not antagonists. On the contrary, they are sisters. While science tries to learn more about the creation, religion tries to better understand the Creator.
Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize God. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies, and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the electron as real while refusing to accept God? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they wouldn’t know how to begin building a model of God.
For me the idea of a creation is inconceivable without God. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it all. Some evolutionists believe that the creation is the result of a random arrangement of atoms and molecules over billions of years. But when they consider the development of the human brain by random processes within a time span of less than a million years, they have to admit that this span is just not long enough. Or take the evolution of the eye in the animal world. What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?
Our space ventures have been only the smallest of steps in the vast reaches of the universe and have introduced more mysteries than they have solved. Speaking for myself, I can only say that the grandeur of the cosmos serves to confirm my belief in the certainty of a Creator."Wernher Von Braun. Page not found | Creation SafarisAlas, poor Wernher! Such 'pre-conceived notions'.But I will stay on this side of the line with him.

quote:

---

The moon is not 4.6 billion yrs old. Not even close.

---

Rocks brought back from the moon contain zircon crystals. Zircons crystallize only after 80 to 85 percent of a volume of molten rock has solidified. By understanding how uranium within the zirconium breaks down into lead, scientists believe they know when the crystals formed with an error margin of less than 4 million years. The oldest zircons from the moon are about 10 million years older than the oldest yet discovered on Earth. The ages of lunar zircons identified in other studies hint that small amounts of the moon’s crust remained molten for another 200 million to 400 million years. - source: How old is the moon? | Science BuzzBy the way, using this technique, scientists landed on the 4.6 billion year old figure for the moon.What have you to say about that?Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

How about giving me your name?

One day you may learn the difference between assertion and evidence.And on that day you will learn the difference between science and stuff you make up.I've just been praying for you. But with little hope of success.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.