Moons: their origin, age, & recession

I believe cosmic evolution is a bit different than the Theory of Evolution. Hence the adjective, cosmic. They were talking about how the cosmos developed from beginning to what we see now through the interaction of physical forces. Despite the use of the word evolution, those are two different concepts.And once again you are suggesting that one scientist is equal to another. You are arguing cosmology, and the moons in particular. Evolution is the study of how living things develop over time. Comparing the moons of the solar system to the evolution of living things is like comparing apples to oranges and lumping cosmologists who study those fields in with biologists who study evolution only serves to confuse the issue. Remember, the study of the Cosmos is a different field than the study of Evolution.That said, I think cavediver dealt with your point with the moon quite nicely. I think someone else posted this site, but I'll post it again just in case you missed it. Talk Origins has a fantastic little explanation for the recession of the moon. Basically, it states that the moon's recession has been slower in the past because the moon has been gaining energy from the friction caused by the rotation of the Earth. As the Earth rotates, it generates friction against the bottom of the oceans and the ocean floor. A lot of that energy is transferred to the oceans, but some is transferred to the moon as the moon and earth are in the same "system." This transfer of energy causes the moon to speed up its orbit and as the moon speeds up, it recedes farther out from earth. This is why the moon's recession is faster now than it was in the past.

Really? Creationism can explain what, why, and who? Then can creationism explain HOW it happened?Science is primarily concerned with the HOW of the Universe. WHO and WHY are not often questions that scientists asks. That's usually the realm of philosophers and theologians, not scientists.Again, you argue under the assumption that science and religion are working at cross purposes, each trying to answer the same question. But the truth is that religion often tries to step into science's domain, answering HOW, but science rarely, if ever, tries to step into religion's domain, answering WHO or WHY. Give an observed example of God creating the heavens, the earth, and all life in 6 days.

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.

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.

You still haven't given me the observed evidence that I have asked for. Where is the observed evidence of this power of Jesus Christ and his being a witness to the creation of the Universe according to the Bible? I know by evidence how the moon got into place in orbit around the Earth. However the moon was formed (probably through the same process that formed the planets,) a Mars-sized object crashed into the Earth. The surface material was either ejected into space or transferred to the Earth. What mostly remained was the rocky core underneath. Because of the impact, the object we now call the moon ricocheted back into space at a reduced velocity (basic physics here.) The object was moving slow enough to be captured into orbit by Earth's gravity and thus we have our moon.Now the moon was a lot closer to the Earth in the past. But because of a complex interaction of forces, some of which involved resistance of liquids, namely our ocean, gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy was transferred to our moon, speeding up the orbital speed. As an object orbits faster, it tends to move into an orbit farther away. The faster it orbits, the faster it moves away. Thus, the moon, in the beginning, was receding slower than it is now.But you won't consider this argument because it violates your belief that "God did it" for which you still haven't shown any observable evidence of.Edited by Izanagi, : changed observation to evidence

I believe showing observed evidence how your belief is on-topic for this discussion. You said God put the moon in place. I want you to show observed evidence of it. You said Jesus saw it. Then you need to show observed evidence that Jesus was there to see it (since I can't really ask him myself.) If you can show observed evidence for either one and are willing to subject your evidence to falsification, then your contention that "God did it" will carry more weight, at least with me.And to address your other point about wanting observation and not opinions, many of the lunar rocks were tested for composition and found to have oxygen isotope compositions which are nearly the same as the Earth. The fact that rocks on the moon have the same oxygen isotope compositions that are nearly the same as on Earth is suggestive of an early life collision between the two bodies.

No... it just means more friction would've have been produced which means that more energy would have been transferred to the moon in the past than now.But that energy would be used to overcome the inertia of shifting it into a ever higher orbit. The lower you are to an object's center of gravity, the more energy that is required to move to a higher orbit. That's why it is harder to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from sea level than it is to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from 50000 miles above the earth. Which means that the closer the moon was to the earth, the faster it would need to orbit to move it to a higher orbit. That might be a poor choice of words. A better choice might be "the energy released from the friction of the ocean floor against the ocean." My apologies for my poor choice of words.

Don't presume to know what I will or will not accept. I accept explanations that are reasoned and logical and are supported by evidence. And I am quite capable of conceding an argument if it turns out my view has flaws in it or an alternative explanation is better than my current one. Give observable evidence of this. Give observable evidence of this. You have observable evidence of the formation of the moons? Why is it that you can't show 1.? What's so special about 1. that you can't show it as observable evidence of your claim that God created the moon and put it into orbit around the earth?What I am doing is setting your own standard for science against your own beliefs. I am being fair and objective. If you set a standard for me, it is only fair I set the same standard for you. So show me your observed evidence that God created the moon and placed it in orbit around the earth and let me judge for myself what I will or will not accept. I have already explained how. Read my post again and open your mind to it. The only person who has shown themselves unwilling to listen to any argument is you.

I am researching into your question. You seem to be more reasonable than Calypsis4 when it comes to considering the evidence. I'll make the effort to learn the answer to your questions, so I hope you will consider objectively whatever answer I do find.Of course, if anyone does know the answer it will certainly save me a lot of time...

Why must it be shown personally? Seems a bit suspicious to me... But you see, science can explain that too. The electromagnetic force keeps an atom together and keeps the atoms together in molecules. See, this answers HOW atoms and molecules stay together. HOW does God keep atoms and molecules together in your "God did it" model? How have you documented this? Have you made recordings and have video evidence? Regardless, it doesn't show HOW you can prove God created the moon and put it into orbit. To quote an aphorism, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Once again I will say that science deals with the HOW, not the WHO or WHY. Science explains HOW things happened, not WHO did it or WHY they did it. All your explanations that say "God did it" only serve to answer the question WHO. I am asking HOW. H-O-W, just in case you are dyslexic and are mistaking who for how. So HOW did God do it and show me observed evidence of it.

From what I have read in the TalkOrigins article and on Wiki, tidal dissipation mostly occurs in shallow seas. This means that the greater the area of shallow seas there are, the greater the tidal dissipation.A consistently multi-continent Earth doesn't allow for a 4.5 billion year old moon. This was "Slichter's Dilemma." But when you factor in a single continent in Earth's history, a single continent Earth would have less shallow seas and thus lower tidal dissipation.This is just a cursory glance through the information though.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Not somehow. Hansen produced two models by which he showed that having a single continent does in fact change the tidal dissipation. Tidal dissipation mostly occurs in shallow seas. A single continent has less beach area, and less shallow sea area, which means that tidal dissipation would be lower than what it is now.So if Hansen could prove a single continent Earth in history, then everything falls neatly into place.And lo and behold, we do have evidence of a single continent Earth. One is the way South America and Africa seemed to fit together. And interestingly enough, the mid-Atlantic Ridge also roughly corresponds to the shape. That is only some of the observable evidence and certainly some that we can see with our own eyes.

If you're going to use something, try understand the big picture. Scienceblog.com looks into your source and interestingly enough, it says that earliest date of those formations was from roughly 900 ma. That lies within the late Precambrian but the Precambrian spans 4500 ma (4.5 billion years) to 542 ma. This also closely corresponds to TalkOrigins article on moon recession where they mentioned what the Williams reported lunar recession from 650 ma to now was. TalkOrigins also mentions that Williams calculated the rate of retreat from 2500 ma to 650 ma.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

No, it states from the late Precambrian. The Precambrian Eon spanned 4500 ma to 542 ma and the data only goes back as far as 900 ma. Get your facts straight. There's still a couple of billion years that you haven't accounted for.That means the value of k can be variable, and is proven variable by older tidal rhythmites.

I did see those pictures in Calypsis4's thread on flood and fossils, but I never had a chance to weigh in on them. To be honest, I had wanted to say that while it was nice for Caly to include photos of his family vacation, vacation photo's do not constitute evidence or even counter evidence. And that is indicative of the greater problem that Caly has with evidence.The fact is, the recession rate of the moon isn't always stable over time. It changes over time such that we need to take many measurements and use the average rate in discussions. We have shown how the moon recedes and why it changes over time. We have shown the theory and linked to sites where he could study the math and the ideas. However, Caly has consistently rebuffed all attempts of getting him to address the evidence we have presented. It had gotten to the point where the discussion devolved from a debate about facts to where Caly simply stated, "God did it." He is not being honest with himself or us.Science is a process by which we gain a better understanding of the Universe around us. To deny one field of science without evidence is to deny all science, even those that impact our daily lives. I wonder how many creationists are willing to fly in an airplane built on faith? To argue scientifically, a person needs to show why the current theory is wrong or inadequate and how the evidence better supports another theory. Creationists have consistently been inadequate in arguing against scientific theories because at the core of their argumentation is the same belief Caly holds - that "God did it."The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our moon is about as old. The moon likely collided with Earth putting it in orbit around the Earth. Tidal friction and gravity causes the moon to recede, and the continent drift theory explains why the moon's recession rate has not always been constant. If you want to debate this theory, show why the evidence supports your theory better than it does the current one and how your theory will predict any new observations. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting your breath.