(5) The moons gravitation pull on the earth has been slowly causing the days to lengthen. Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth. With this in mind the eath/moon relationship could not possible be more than 1.2 billion years old, and geologic evidence indicates that it is much younger. geologic evidence is not the carbon dating or anything along those lines but the evidence I have provided to you.
"Creatortionistas" (creationists that distort the truth, like "Dr. Dino") like to use bad math to make their points. They do this because the know (1) the believers are not going to check the math if what he tells them correlates with their belief and (2) they can sound professional and scientific to the ignorant.
The basic premise is correct -- the effect of the moon's gravity on the earth, especially on the tides causes (a) the earth's rotation to slow down and (b) the moon's orbital energy to increase. The math that hovind uses after that is where his conclusion goes bogus.
Let's look at another piece of evidence for an old earth: corals, fossil corals, that have not only annual growth patterns but daily growth patterns, and have a repudable radiometric dating age and let's see if the evidence adds up.
We can assemble the bits and pieces, placing ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (T-230 and P-231 are used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who doubt radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?
The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system. From
"Coral Growth and Geochronometry> (Nature, March 9, 1963 By Prof. John W. Wells):
Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h (ref. 1).
If we could determine, for example, that the number of days in the Cambrian year was of the order of 420, it would seem to confirm an indicated age of 600 million years based on tidal friction and in turn that since isotopic methods give the same result they too are in harmony.
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.
Point 1: -- These are calculations made by professional astro-physicists on the rotational period of the earth versus age of the earth, they are made by the same knowledge of physics that lands rovers on mars in the area that was chosen to land in. Their prediction is that 600 million years ago the day was 21 hours long and there were 420 in a year. This clearly is NOT a young earth (nor is Hovind's "date" of 1.2 billion years, btw)
Point 2: -- They predicted that fossil corals that show daily growth rings would show this change in rotational period as increased days in annual growth, and the radiometric dating of the fossil puts them at the right age for the rotational period calculated by the astro-physicists.
Old earth validated by the evidence showing that the rotational period did in fact change in just the way that the asto-physicists calculated. But that's not all -- let's look at the earth\moon system age issues.
First the ages of each:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.
The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.
Point 3: -- This is real geological evidence that shows that the earth is 4.54 billion years old and the moon is a close second (based on very limited data) at 4.5 billion years old. Any rock can date younger, but that isn't evidence of a younger earth or moon.
Logical conclusion: they were formed at the same time, about 4.5 billion years ago.
Also note (from the same source):
Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago.
Pretty good agreement on the age of the solar system so far.
Now from
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/.../lect/moon/moon_formation.html
Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):- The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
- The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
- The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
- The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
- The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.
These analyses indicate that the abundances of elements in Lunar and Terrestrial material are sufficiently different to make it unlikely that the Moon formed directly from the Earth. Generally, work over the last 10 years has essentially ruled out the first two explanations and made the third one rather unlikely. At present the fifth hypothesis, that the Moon was formed from a ring of matter ejected by collision of a large object with the Earth, is the favored hypothesis; however, the question is not completely settled and many details remain to the accounted for.
There is some controversy on this issue of the formation of the moon:
Earth – Facts and Information about the Planet Earth
A pair of new studies has helped pin down how long it took Earth to form, breaking down the final barrier of disagreement over the precise timing but creating a problem for the leading theory of the Moon's formation.
Earth reached mature size 30 million years after the Sun's birth, the two independent results show. This is in line with the leading theoretical model and most other indicators.
However, this is about 70 million years quicker than what was expected by Moon formation theorists. These researchers' computer models have the satellite being carved from a nearly mature Earth by a large impact about 100 million years after the origin of the solar system.
Cameron said the new dates might call into question the leading theory of the Moon's formation. That theory holds that about 100 million years after the Sun's birth, the Earth was about 90 percent of its full size and was hit by a single Mars-sized object. The impact kicked up material that went into orbit around the planet and gathered together to become the Moon.
(the leading theory of the Moon's formation linked above says:
For 25 years, scientists have pondered a theory that the Moon was created when an object the size of Mars crashed into Earth less than 100 million years after the Sun was born, some 4.6 billion years ago. The general idea has been run through the paces and massaged into shape and is now the favored explanation.
Point 4: -- There is disagreement on how the earth moon system formed, but all these theories are consistent with an earth and moon formed 4.5 billion years ago, and these theories are being promoted by those same astro-physicists that predicted the rotational period of the earth that was validated by the coral fossils. Clearly the mathematics of the earth-moon system does not collapse in a mere 1.2 billion years when done properly.
One final point.
Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth.
Mathematical models never prove anything. It is a model of reality that involves making assumptions and it is used to make predictions: it is only as good as the assumptions involved. Models are tested against reality, not to see if reality is wrong, but to see if the model is accurate. If the results predicted by the model are not reflected in reality, then the model is changed.
If a mathematical model shows that Hurricane Katerina could not have hit New Orleans, then one has to assume that either the mathematical model is wrong or recent experience is wrong. Only logically challenged people would side with the mathematical model and say that recent experience is wrong.
If a mathematical model is at odds with reality it is not the reality that is wrong.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
{/abe}
™ Version 4.2
