Calypsis4 responds to me:
quote:
Look, you are losing this argument.
Said the person who plagiarised his opening post.
quote:
You are only giving opinions.
Huh? You mean that corals don't give any information with regard to day-length rates (which are affected by the tidal forces of the moon and thus can be used to establish a clock for the moon's existence)? You mean that tidal rhythmites don't exist? There are no cycles to be seen in them? This information doesn't show us that the moon was only receding at half the present rate? And the radiometric dating of the lunar rocks didn't show them to be more than 4 billion years old? Or is radiometric dating unreliable and a fraud?
Did you bother to read the references I provided you?
quote:
I don't care for your opinions.
Indeed, but that's because they contradict yours. Please answer the question I put to you:
What would it take for you to say you were wrong? Your model says that the rate of the moon's recession was faster in the past. But all the physical evidence we have indicates that it was actually much slower.
If your equation does not align with observation, what justification are you using to claim that the observation is in error rather than your equation?
It's like some perverted version of that creationist canard claiming "Scientists said bees can't fly!"
First, that was never what was said. Instead, it was said that using rigid-wing aerodynamics, bees shouldn't be able to fly. It was never denied that bees can't fly for it is trivial to show that they can. Instead, scientists realized that bees must fly using mechanisms that aren't replicated in rigid-wing flight.
And, indeed, that is the case. A bee's wings are not rigid but flexible. This creates vortices positioned in places that provide the bee lift above and beyond that which is generated directly from the wings.
So now here you come along saying that your equation is everything! All hail your plagiarized equation!
But the moon is trivially shown to be more than 4 billion years old. So what does that do to your equation?
As I asked you before: What sort of evidence would you require to have you conclude that you were wrong?
quote:
Really? Where are your facts?
In the references I provided to you. You did read them, did you not? I can't do your homework for you.
quote:
Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface?
Before we even get to the question of this "testimony," you need to explain what this has to do with the age of the moon. Why would volcanic activity on the moon lead one to conclude that it isn't 4 billion years old?
quote:
It appears to me that you are ignoring them just like your 'scientific' comrades are doing.
I'm also ignoring the people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, but that's because it doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand.
Why would "transient lunar phenomena" have any effect upon the age of the moon?
quote:
But I intend to give a lot more evidence about the young age of the moon than I already have. Just tune in tomorrow; same time, same place.
Will it be your own work or will you be plagiarizing somebody else?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
