Moons: their origin, age, & recession

quote:

---

But moving on, show us how this: (picture of some gas clouds)

​

Evolved into this: (picure of Earth's moon)

​

Give an observed example.

---

You are sounding more and more like Smooth Operator lol.So, the required level of evidence for you to believe something is that human beings have observed it happening firsthand? If that were the case, how can you believe in creation? You didn't observe it firsthand did you?

The creation is finished. No matter is being created now. BUT...there was a witness to creation. The Lord Jesus Christ, co-Creator with the Father and King of the universe. His power I have seen and have verified it to many personally.Back to the moon. Show us how gases can create a moon by any process.

You mocking attitude and insult to Wernher Von Braun does not incline me to answer you or even take you seriously.You are off topic anyway.

Give me observed evidence of this power and that Jesus was there during the creation. Is there a photo that I can look at, you know, with the Universe being created in the background and God and Jesus in the foreground giving two thumbs up?Remember, right now your explanation for the moons is, "God did it." And just like you want observed evidence from us, I demand observed evidence from you. Keep in mind that using one supernatural being as witness for another supernatural being's action is not observed evidence, especially since both supernatural beings are one and the same, yet different.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Apart from your amazing relationship with that oh-so made up heavenly father of yours, I'd expect you to know some basic stuff if you intend to debate it. Basic stuff like the fact that the prevailing theory today is not that Earth's moon formed from gas clouds but that it formed from matter ejected from the Earth when a Mars-sized object struck the Earth.I'd try to illuminate you with the basics of how a solar system forms from colliding gas clouds, but since I haven't got a polaroid photograph of this happening you probably wouldn't believe it.Besides, I refuse to answer any more questions until you answer the ones I have posed to you.AND... how dare you of accusing ME of being off topic when you still haven't answered my question about the zircon crystal evidence for a 4.6 billion year old moon, about as ON TOPIC a question as you'll find it what is rapidly turning into a "praise God" thread.Edited by Briterican, : Needed to turn the knife a little after inserting it.

Hey, I'm creationist by the way. But you can't just keep on piling things up in a thread, one after the other. You have to take the original claim of your thread (lunar recession), and you defend it. Rationally. And if it becomes unreasonable, you admit it and pass on to another line of argument.You can't just keep on piling argument after argument one after the other. The laws of logic as well as reason were made by God, or rather in fact they are a direct result of God's self-consistent nature, and I would suggest you used them more. Less writing, more thinking.

quote:

---

And if the 'scientific community' is wrong(?) a la Piltdown, Haeckel's ridiculous drawings, Nebraska man, Coelacanth, and most lately Archeoraptor?

---

The scientific community wasn't wrong about those things. That of course, doesn't mean that the scientific community is never wrong. It's a human process. But it's self correcting. All you have to do to correct the scientific community when it's wrong is present evidence. Not out of context quotes, not long ago discredited arguments, and certainly not religion.

quote:

---

Understand that evolutionists do not comprise the entire scientific community. Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Gary Parker, Steven Austin, John Morris, John Sanford, and even non-Christians Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe & the agnostic David Berlinski do not believe in evolution. I could name a couple thousand more I have listed in my files.

---

If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I specifically referred to virtually every member of the scientific community. I specifically didn't say every member because I was fully aware you'd trot out the usual list of cdesign proponentists such as Behe, creotards like John Morris, and other sundry minority opinions. I'd sure you could find as many as one or two thousand. I can name over 1,100 just named Steve that say your people are wrong. If we suppose that Steve represents say 1% of all names, that means for every one person on your list, there are 100 who disagree with them. That's what I was talking about when I said virtually every member of the scientific community.Thus, my original point stands.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You are out of this discussion.Don't even bother.

Why not? Is it making them all uncomfortble?

slevesque,Evidence and explanations have already been given. Take a look at this site.The basic idea is that the moon's recession has not always been constant. Because of the complex interaction of forces, energy is being created through the earth's rotation and part of the energy is transferred to the moon giving it a faster orbit. Because the orbit of the moon has been increasing, it recedes faster now than it did in the past.The math apparently complex due to the number of forces involved, but it does explain why the moon recedes faster now than it did in the past, when you think about it.The problem is not that there is no evidence for this happening; the problem is that Calypsis4 wants observed evidence. But this is not being objective, since he has set the bar incredibly high for science but has set the bar incredibly low for his beliefs. If he wanted to be objective, he would set both bars equally high and see which gets farther up. In the case of his beliefs, he should demand of himself the same kind of observable evidence for his beliefs that he demands of science.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Why, oh WHY make a post that simply says "you are out of this discussion" ? What power have you to bar his/her participation?

Let me turn that around on you: "Remember, right now your explanation for the moons is, 'nature did it'.Right. (wink)Idiocy. You don't even know HOW the moon was fashioned in the first place, still less the entire solar system but you give me that grade school comeback.

quote:

---

Why not? Is it making them all uncomfortble?

---

Not in the least. Nothing you have said yet rises to the level of intellectual discourse I have with my 12 year old nephew.

It's called 'ignore'.

Ah gotcha. Funny how that doesn't knock him out of the discussion as far as the rest of us are concerned. Only you. Closing up those ears when they hear things you don't like?