Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 4 of 222 (528388)
10-06-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-05-2009 10:32 PM


Standard creationist nonsense
Standard creationist nonsense.
Rebutted here:
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
by Tim Thompson Source
Conclusions
I don't know if there are other, "authoritative" creationist sources for the "speedy moon" argument. But if there are, it is unlikely that their arguments presented differ much from those seen here. I spent quite a bit more time reviewing the actual science of the Earth-moon tidal interaction because once it is well developed, the flaw in the creationist arguments becomes so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to refute them. The most remarkable aspect of this, I think, is the somebody like DeYoung, who certainly has legitimate qualifications (a PhD in physics from Iowa State University), would offer up such a one-equation model as if it was actually definitive. That kind of thing works as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, to get the order of magnitude, or a first approximation for the right answer, but it should have been clear to an unbiased observer that it could never be a legitimate realistic model. It is also of considerable interest that both DeYoung and Brown published their refutations of evolution only after evolution had already refuted their refutations! Barnes didn't do all that much better, having overlooked Hansen (1982) for two years. My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident.
As for the real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.
I don't know where you keep coming up with these silly unscientific arguments, but I can assume why.
You need to support your belief in the face of scientific evidence that contradicts that belief. Because they have no scientific data to present, creationists misrepresent that data, and ignore anything that doesn't support their beliefs.
And they want to teach this in the public schools! Its bad enough that they teach this nonsense in their religious venues, raising up another generation of scientific illiterates.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:50 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 222 (528528)
10-06-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:57 AM


All scientists are evolutionists?
Going further concerning the origin of the moons of our solar system. Question:
1. If the moons are celestial objects that originated within the planest themselves (not a popular theory) then how did they end up in orbit hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets?
2. If the moons were 'captured' by the planets then why has no one ever observed such a capture in the history of recorded science? How could it happen in the first place considering the Roche limit of each planet would cause the utter disintigration of such moons?
3. If the moons are merely collections of inter-solar debris/rock that was gravitationally pulled together then what observation of such an event could reinforce this possiblity?
4. Why do so many moons have retrograde orbits?
Quote: "The moons Ananke, Carme, Pasipha and Sinope and many other small moons all orbit Jupiter in a retrograde direction.
The moon Phoebe, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, and many other small moons all orbit Saturn in a retrograde direction.
The moon Triton, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, orbits Neptune in a retrograde direction as do some small moons." Wikipedia.
Evolutionists don't have a clue.
Evolutionist is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.
How Old is the Earth: Some Creationist Ages of the Earth
I studied evolution and related subjects for six years in graduate school, and I don't remember the subject of planetary moons ever coming up, so I guess you are right for a change: in that area I don't have a clue.
But I did learn enough about evolution to know that, in that field, you don't have a clue. You are just repeating your religious beliefs, while trying to dredge up any hint of a tad of evidence to support those beliefs and ignoring or misrepresenting anything that contradicts those beliefs. Creation "science" as usual, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:57 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:29 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 141 of 222 (528651)
10-06-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Briterican
10-06-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Go ahead
Your [Calypsis'] way of thinking is hopelessly useless to those of us that expect logic and reason in our arguments. It sounds to me that you are trying to say religion has all the answers, but that we must be willing to take it all on "faith". Hogwash.
I'm waiting for the threads on geocentrism, a flat earth, and the demonic theory of disease.
When one gets this far out on the fringe they can't be far behind.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 2:06 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:51 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 169 of 222 (528702)
10-06-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 4:31 PM


More preaching
The Bible is a written account of the history of the world from creation until the time of Christ. If you can't accept that as authoritative then we are at an impass. Nonetheless, since I have seen miraculous power, instantaneous healings, & supernatural occurrences on a number of occasions, and because true science comports with divine revelation, I utterly reject the skeptics position that the blind forces of natures made all things.
Aren't you on the wrong section of this website? Preaching goes in the Faith section.
This is the science section. If you don't have scientific evidence to support your positions just say so.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 4:31 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:15 PM Coyote 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