Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Calypsis4 writes:

quote:

---

It was because of the NASA moon landings that we have accurate measurements of the lunar regression of 4 cm per yr.

---

Nobody denies this.However, the geological evidence on the earth shows that the moon wasn't always receding at its current rate.In the past, it was much slower...only about 1.27 cm/year for the time between 2.5 BYA and 650 MYA.

quote:

---

How typical of evolutionist believers!

---

Huh? What on earth does a "transient lunar phenomenon" have to do with evolution?And even more important to this thread, what does this have to do with the age of the earth and/or moon? Why would the existence of such things point to a young moon?Be specific.In your own words, please.

---

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.

Still interested in buying that bridge I see.Look, you are losing this argument. You are only giving opinions. I don't care for your opinions. Really? Where are your facts? Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface? It appears to me that you are ignoring them just like your 'scientific' comrades are doing.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.Bye.

You blew it again, pal. You don't read carefully.Quote: "From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance..."If you will check my documentation you will discover that it was Dr. Jonathan Henry that made that quote. Besides that, Dr. DeYoung told me that the '6th power of the distance' was not original with him. He gave me the name of the scientist who documented it. I am looking for that file. So far, that's the only point you've been right about. I should have said 'moon'.Sleep tight. I'm gone.

Yes, for that would be an absolutely ridiculous claim. There is no volcanic activity on the moon whatsoever. Show me the evidence then. You haven't given any.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

So that's your M.O., eh? Just make a random ass post, don't back it up when questioned about it, then leave? How proffesional.

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.

How does this count as evidence for a young moon vs and old moon?

You need to do some reading. Evolutionist assumptions are that the moon has been a dead celestial object for nearly 3 billion yrs. But numerous sightings of volcanic activity strongly suggest otherwise.

Ditto what I told the previous poster.

Yeah, when in doubt, ask someone wedded to your own cult for an unbiased answer And this guy is a professor of physics??? Does he even understand what generates the lunar recession? It's not the Earth-Lunar tidal forces, but the Earth's actual tides. The tidal bulges do not align with the Earth-Lunar axis, and this non-alignment creates an acceleration to the Moon in its orbit, which lifts it to a higher orbit. This process is highly dependent on the tidal bulges, their size, and their rotational period. And he uses a constant 'k' in his diff equation To calculate past recession rates you need to know the tidal rotational period at the very least, even after making some reasonable assumptions about the tidal mass being similar. Guess what? When we look at the evidence, we see faster tides (shorter days) and slower recessional rates. Oh big surprise He was probably too busy choking on his laughter while calling for security...

"Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface?" That's plural: claims. There are many of them as indicated by the color points on the Lunar map: This reply just reinforces something we have observed in most adherents of evolution: you & those of your mind set won't receive evidence against your theory no matter what it is nor who the sources are.Quote: "Reports of transient lunar phenomena range from foggy patches to permanent changes of the lunar landscape. Cameron[1] classifies these as (1) gaseous, involving mists and other forms of obscuration, (2) reddish colorations, (3) green, blue or violet colorations, (4) brightenings, and (5) darkenings. Two extensive catalogs of transient lunar phenomena exist,[1][2] with the most recent tallying 2,254 events going back to the 6th century. Of the most reliable of these events, at least one-third come from the vicinity of the Aristarchus plateau.A few of the more famous historical events of transient phenomena include the following:On June 18, 1178, five or more monks from Canterbury reported an upheaval on the moon shortly after sunset. "There was a bright new moon, and as usual in that phase its horns were tilted toward the east; and suddenly the upper horn split in two. From the midpoint of this division a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out, over a considerable distance, fire, hot coals, and sparks. Meanwhile the body of the moon which was below writhed, as it were, in anxiety, and, to put it in the words of those who reported it to me and saw it with their own eyes, the moon throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it resumed its proper state. This phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisting shapes at random and then returning to normal. Then after these transformations the moon from horn to horn, that is along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance."[3][4] In 1976, Jack Hartung proposed that this described the formation of the Giordano Bruno crater.During the night of April 19, 1787, the famous British astronomer Sir William Herschel noticed three red glowing spots on the dark part of the moon.[5] He informed King George III and other astronomers of his observations. Herschel attributed the phenomena to erupting volcanoes and perceived the luminosity of the brightest of the three as greater than the brightness of a comet that had been discovered on April 10. His observations were made while an aurora borealis (northern lights) rippled above Padua, Italy.[6] Aurora activity that far south from the Arctic Circle was very rare. Padua's display and Herschel's observations had happened a few days before the sunspot number had peaked in May 1787.In 1866, the experienced lunar observer and mapmaker J. F. Julius Schmidt made the claim that Linn crater had changed its appearance. Based on drawings made earlier by J. H. Schrter, as well as personal observations and drawings made between 1841 and 1843, he stated that the crater "at the time of oblique illumination cannot at all be seen"[7] (his emphasis), whereas at high illumination, it was visible as a bright spot. Based on repeat observations, he further stated that "Linn can never be seen under any illumination as a crater of the normal type" and that "a local change has taken place." Today, Linn is visible as a normal young impact crater with a diameter of about 1.5 miles (2.4 km).On November 2, 1958, the Russian astronomer Nikolai A. Kozyrev observed an apparent half-hour "eruption" that took place on the central peak of Alphonsus crater using a 48-inch (122-cm) reflector telescope equipped with a spectrometer..."(Wikipedia)Just some of the enormous amount of evidence that the moon has been quite active and far from the dead orbiting object evolutionists say it is.This is all direct, observational evidence. But shall we just toss our what say, Wm. Herschel & his astronomer friends observed just because his findings disagree with your ridiculous assumptions of deadness?

That's very interesting!When did this happen? I wads always told at school that the moon was a dead rock; can't these emissions eventually form an atmospher?Why don't we get told about these things at school?

I see. So I should have asked you instead. The one who believes the world/universe created itself and that life assembled itself by blind natural processes even though you've never seen a single example that nature can do such a thing.I believe I'll pass. The question is; 'do you know what the origin of lunar regression is in the first place'. By the way, since we know that if the moon continues to lose it's orbit around the earth then in several million yrs it will be too far away to effect the tides and life on earth as we know it will come to an end.Do you call that evolution?

Because the evil evilutionist pseudo-scientists are hiding it in their lair, all the while propagating false evidence and lying to the public in order to amass their fortune shoving the lie that is evolution down our throats.Even Nasa is lying about this phenomena.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Well, given that I explained it in my post, I would have thought you could have answered that yourself What we do realise is that neither you nor your good professor have any real clue as to the process behind the recession of the Moon. No, as the Moon recedes and the Earth's spin slows, they will eventually tidally lock. As for that's effect on life, I'm sure we'll cope. What the hell has this to do with evolution? You really don't have a clue, do you But can we at least agree that your opening post is highly erroneous and the recession of the Moon is not a problem for the stanadard geological time-scale for the Earth-Moon system?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.