Moons: their origin, age, & recession

While evolutionists insist that the moon is 'dead' to volcanic activity the question arises: "why is this not true of other lunar satellites like Io of Jupiter?"Io is the most active moon in the solar system. This stunning photo reveals a huge plummage of an active volcano on Io. Since Jupiter is believed to be about the same age as the earth (4.5 billion yrs) AMAZING SPACE...why then do we see active volcanic activity on Io? Don't the same rules apply?

Oh, but I have and I have many witnesses. I even recorded some of it.But this is off topic. Care to get back on?

"Nope, the fallacy is yours, you believe absolutely in something you haven't observed & berate others for doing the same."But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not. But that is not the topic of this post. Now comment on the historical sightings of volcanic activity on the moon. Comment on the active volcanic activity of such moons as Io. Why is the moon supposedly 'dead' of such activity while Io is even more volcanic than earth? Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

Really? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity? Why is Europa covered with water/ice on most of its surface? The moons of Jupiter are so very different from one another...as if they were made that way.

You are pretending. Let me make it even harder on you: give the time and date that lunar regression began. You aren't even paying attention. The title of the thread is: 'Moons: their origin, age, & recession.'You need to post elsewhere because your posts are of no interest to me.

Going further concerning the origin of the moons of our solar system. Question:1. If the moons are celestial objects that originated within the planets 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.Quote: " Triton orbits Neptune in what is known as a retrograde orbit. This means that it orbits Neptune a direction opposite the planet's rotation. It is the only large moon in the Solar System to do this. Astronomers are not quite sure of the reason for this retrograde orbit."Triton, moon of Neptune - The Solar System on Sea and Sky The real reason that the moons (as well as Halley's comet and other celestial objects) are in backward motion from all others is because Almighty God set them in motion that way. He did this purposely so that observing man would see that natural forces would not/could not do this. Edited by Calypsis4, : correction

And Io happens to be the exception?

You mean DeYoung...among others.1. Because the evolutionist formulas do not take into account the law of inverse variation as it relates to lunar regression. At least none that I have seen.2. Quote: "From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10—2 m/yr.36—38 Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius." Dr. Jonathan Henry. Edited by Calypsis4, : addition

Quite. Now think. Why is there so much difference in character, size, density, atmospheric conditions, etc.? Some of them are unique and unlike all others. Doesn't the variety tell you something? The bottom line is that they did not create themselves nor did they set themselves in orbit around the planets. No one has EVER observed a moon being captured by a planet, & no one has ever seen a moon develop in orbit around a planet since the days of Galileo until now.Cosmic evolution, like evolution in general is a myth. Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

Scientists who believe in evolution. It's a useless point. Why even argue about that? Then I rest my case as far as you are concerned.Have a nice day.

Such answers are so pitifully shallow that it's hardly worth answering.'Do we need one?'Science is based upon empirical investigation.

'Processes'? You mean processes like angular momentum? Processes like gravitational pull that has yet to produce a single observed example of a planet or a moon being formed?Oh, those processes.

I would kindly suggest you look up the definition of 'empirical investigation'.Have a nice day.

Once again, you stuck your foot in your mouth. You would do well to read all my posts before you make such statements.I said above, "Scientists who believe in evolution. It's a useless point. Why even argue about that?"It is a moot point to argue it because so many astronomers believe in cosmic evolution (i.e. Carl Sagan did, Paul Davies, Alton Harp, etc.). Let it go.

Have you even had physics? Yes/no?I thought it would be clear by now. Nonetheless, k is a constant = present speed: 0.04 m/year.We already know that since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance then it follows that the recession rate of the moon is inversely proportional to the 6th power of the distance. This is because the earth and moon both effect each other and it is reciprocal. Edited by Calypsis4, : addition