The original post in this case has been criticised (rightly so in my opinion) for being plaigarised from some other source, rather than being an accurate representation of events actually transpiring between the poster and "a Princeton astronomer". If you can look past that, you come to the issue of the moon's recession, and the OP's bold statement that:
The evolutionary time scale as it concerns the age of the moon is in error.
The very first response (from Rrhain) quite directly addressed the OP's concerns with the moon's recession rate, providing several explanations for this apparent discrepancy.
Despite several posters directly addressing the points raised in the original post, Calypsis4's responses for a time consisted of nothing more than bare refutation without support, for example:
"The Geophysicists who say the universe is 4.6 billion yrs old are in error. The facts speak otherwise. I have only just begun."
We waited, as this was apparently only the beginning, but we continued to see comments like:
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.
Ok so, here's a new area that we have to address with the OP. Ok so there was a bit of side discussion about the possibility of volcanic activity on the moon, during which time Calypsis4 became increasingly defensive, making comments like:
I have seen what God can do. So have many of my comrades.
I think we can all agree that these sort of statements (at least on the science forums) do not contribute anything to the discussion.
This continued however, with blatant preaching:
But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not.
Calypsis4 continued to bounce back and forth between discussion the moon's recession rate, volcanic activity, the age and origin of the moon, and the almighty Lord Jesus Christ.
During this process he continually announced things like "Your posts are of no interest to me" and apparently put several of these people on ignore. This isn't how a debate works.
A particularly telling comment came very early from Calypsis4:
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.
This argument really confuses me. If "Almighty God" had really wanted mankind to see that natural forces couldn't account for the universe at large, couldn't he have just arranged some stars in the sky so they spelled out "copyright (c) Yahweh 0 BC" or something like that? This is the same kind of thinking that spawns claims that fossils were put there by the devil to mislead mankind.
Calypsis4 continually dodged the question of dated moon rocks and the issue regarding whether or not K (from the original post formula) is a constant, and chose instead to exercise a lot of special pleading, culminating in the oh-so-clever trick of giving us 2 jpegs and saying "Show me how this" insert jpeg 1 (gas clouds) "became this" insert jpeg 2 (Earth's moon).
After valiant efforts by Onifire and others to get Calypsis4 to address some specific issues regarding the actual science discussed in the original post, he continued to fail in this respect, to the point that a fellow creationist (Dokukaeru) had to remind him not to engage in "bearing false witness and attacking people personally".
Conclusions
In the end, I am left with certain conclusions:
(a) I am convinced that the story as related in the original post did not happen personally to the poster as is stated, but is rather plaigarised from another source.
(b) I am convinced that the issue of the moon's recession has been adequately addressed by the scientific community and that whatever discrepencies might exist are within the usual margins of uncertainty that exist in all of science.
(c) I am convinced that the original poster holds one set of standards regarding the admissibility of HIS evidence, and an entirely separate set of standards on the admissibilty of the evidence of others.
Regardless of my disapproval of the attitude, methods and demeanour of Calypsis4, I would nonethess offer him my thanks for an entertaining thread that (at leaast initially) had some actual science in it.
Edited by Briterican, : trimmed some hedges
™ Version 4.2
(1)
