Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Do you even bother proofreading your own posts?'yelled different results'Really? Gosh, I'm glad you said that. Where did I say that it wouldn't?What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter. I made it clear from the get-go that I knew that the accelaration rate of the moon's orbit changed in time. That was the whole idea behind my statements concerning the inverse variation law. But it doesn't help the evolutionary theory about the moon unless one fudges the factors. On top of that I have repeatedly brought out direct observational evidence (i.e. William Herschel and his fellow astronomers, et al) that reported volcanic activity on the moon and there is extensive sightings that are just being brushed aside as if it is all of no importance.As I stated earlier; so much for empirical investigation. As done by those who had already concluded the long age time span before they ever set their eyes on the rocks. All of the dating methods are based upon certain assumptions. That's the problem with them.The truth is there, that the critics don't care. They wish to save their ridiculous theory no matter what it takes.

Another Johnny-come-lately jumps on to the tail end of a big debate and arbitrarily declares all my evidence a failure.Does anyone think I have an ounce of respect for that?Werner Von Braun was a sinner before he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord. I was a sinner (& an evolutionist) before I accepted Jesus Christ.There is no 'fail' with those who have eternal life through Christ. The failure is with those who never come to know Him.So not just the formula, but the evidence from history of the volcanic activity on the moon and also the lack of evidence for the evolutionary development of moons from scratch (er, excuse me, gases) and the fact that many moons are in retrograde motion contrary to the laws of physics doesn't phase those who are determined to believe in an accidental world/universe.Well, I am an ex-evolutionist. Been there, done that. Not going there again.

Let's see if the whiz kid professor knows as much about physics as he says he does:Speaking of the moon; what is the gravitational force necessary to keep the moon in orbit around the earth in the first place? The moon has a mass of 7.349 x 10^22 kg. Its mean distance from the earth is 384,000 km. It completes one revolution in 27 days, 7 hrs, and 43 min.This is a classic textbook problem that I gave to my students a few yrs ago before I retired. The answer should be in Newtons.I'll check back tomorrow and see if there is an answer.

Then you quoted the article I made available to them:"In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’.54 This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,55 and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth.56 The extremely speculative nature of such an adjustment was emphasized by Mignard who said, ‘even if we have sound reasons to accept a substantial reduction of the dissipation in the past, we are still lacking evidence of what the Moon’s orbit looked like 3 or 4 billion years ago’."slavesque, they had access to this information but they don't care.

Stop preaching to me about this.You see, it works both ways.

Good for him. Now maybe he can work out the formula in the topic post and see that the moon is not 4.5 billion yrs old or anything close to it.For those that are interested: Dr. Don DeYoung discusses this matter before a large crowd on this video clip: Our Created Moon Jan 1, 2006 | Answers in Genesis Part 2 is the section that concerns the topic at hand. I hope those of you that watch it will view the whole thing.

I don't know how you are getting away with things like this but you will now join the ranks of the non-existent.Bye.

Some concluding remarks about the matter:The focus of the dissension in the matter is on the constant k. But I never insisted that k is absolute or never changes.The skeptics don't like our conclusions but they look to other assumptions to make things turn out nicely for evolution. But in their minds the 4.6 billion yr figure must be saved at all cost. They maintain that k is not a constant after all and that maybe continental distribution somehow changed tidal breaking in the oceans.
But does this fix things for them? We need to understand that a different distribution brings no certainty that k would be smaller and if hypothetically it were larger the difficulty increases many fold. But k has to be substantially smaller for their idea to work and the 4.6 billion yr rescued.Interesting that research on tidal rhythmites seem to be consistent with k as it concerns geologic time. Quote: "The tidal rhythmites in the Proterozoic Big Cottonwood Formation (Utah, United States), the Neoproterozoic Elatina Formation of the Flinders Range (southern Australia), and the Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation (Alabama, United States) and Mansfield Formation (Indiana, United States) indicate that the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104.This will undoubtedly go right over the heads of my opponents but it is extremely significant in this argument.The formulas that seem to favor a 4.6 billion yr age are unrealistic. That coupled with the direct eyewitness testimony of the dozens of observers to volcanic activity on the lunar surface (be sure and view the entire DeYoung video!) is stunning. It is being overlooked but it is one of the biggest reasons why I reject the 4.6 billion yr age for the moon.

If you're asking how long he talks: about 39 minutes; 13 minutes per video.

Is he even capable of thinking on a different level?I don't agree with their evolutionary time scale. I merely pointed out that from their perspective the evidence that they interpret as the lunar regression has not changed since pre-cambrian times. That's over 542 million yrs ago (according to them). So if k has been stable for that long then even from the evolutionists time frame the theory of 4.6 billion yr age of the moon won't work.What my opponents have been harping at all day is our use of the constant k...but as Doc Adequate failed to grasp is that we don't have a time frame in human history that we know that the figure has changed. Guesswork has to be applied to any change in what appears to be stable.

And once again, you have confused me sir.I did. (1) the formula in the topic post, (2) the historical sightings of lunar volcanic activity, (3) the retrograde motion of a number of moons (ex. Triton), and (4) the lack of any visible observance of the gaseous formation of moons. (5) the video was a suggestion in addition to all else I have posted.Why would you ask me to do something I have already done?Nonetheless, thank you, but I am done here.

Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning.Have a nice day.

What in the heck are you talking about? I never even LOOKED at True/origins in this discussion! I listed my sources so why is it even necessary to say such things? They are, in order: 1. Talk/origins(NOT True/origins) 2. Creation Wiki 3. Dr. Don DeYoung 4. Dr. Jonathan Henry 5. George Darwin. Each sentence/paragraph I quoted from them is in parenthesis except what I received from DeYoung himself but I clearly said that he was the one who gave me the information. He explained to me the problems with evolutionary interpretation of the age of the moon.Here is the ironic thing; my opponents harped on the constant k and the '6th power of separation' repeatedly. What they don't know is that that formula was not developed by DeYoung, Jonathan Henry, nor any other creationist. It was developed by (gasp!) George Darwin, the son of the 'great' Charles Darwin! (The Tides, Houghton Mifflin, p. 274, 1898).Now notice in cavedivers first post, Then this: Cavediver made a fool of himself. It was Darwin's formula and it was he who called 'k' a constant. Yet the discussions I saw never even suggested that that constant was absolute. Once I determined that this guy was a smart alec and wouldn't approach the matter without a condescending attitude I decided not to give him the time of day.What displeases me about this is the intellectual dishonesty of the evolutionist position. If the constant 'k' is not absolute then we've only measured a change in it by extrapolation and mathematical guesswork and not by observation. Yet I pointed out from this So if from the evolutionist standpoint the 4 cm recession of the moon has been the same for about a billion yrs then what would make them think that it has varied? So who is telling the truth? Should we believe talk/origins & cavediver or the evolutionists Sonett, Kvale, Zakharian, Chan, and Demko? But in this we have the same problem that exists in so many pronouncements of evolutionary believers about the facts, a la differing radiocarbon dates for the same specimens by way of example.Last night my new thread on the 'The Flood, the fossils, & the evidence' was shut down by the administrator in charge because, as he claimed, 'Calypsis is all over the place' blah, blah, blah. No, I was not 'all over the place' I was attempting very hard to answer the questions, but everything I said was right on target as far as the subject of the thread was concerned. I hadn't even covered half of what I wanted to post on the subject because the evidence I have is so extensive. Not only so but in the first few days I posted here I was suspended four times even though I was brand new and had not learned the 'ropes'. No wonder there aren't more creationists posting on this website.I am weary with the attitude I see here. No matter what the evidence or quality of that evidence against evolution, it is brushed aside with trivial explanations and shallow thinking, all of which reveals a bigotry against the facts that are revealed honestly and forthrightly.You may suspend me or ban me from EvC for my statements but it doesn't matter to me any longer. So if you wish your evolutionist majority to be arguing with thin air, then feel free to take that action.Best wishes. Edited by Calypsis4, : addition