Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Plugging gaps is right. I can't get beyond the fact that creationists start their journey of exploration with a preconceived notion, that of a divine creator, which influences every tiny turn they take along the way.Scientists, though oftentimes guilty of approaching a problem from their own particular angle, do NOT have this horrifying blasphemous feeling if something flies in the face of their data. They re-evaluate, they go back to the drawing board, and they let the evidence take them where it may.

quote:

---

How do you explain the retrograde orbits of so many moons of the solar system?

---

Triton is the only large moon with a retrograde orbit, and it is thought to be thus because it is believed that Triton was captured from the Kuiper Belt rather than developing slowly along with Neptune and its other moons.I can tell you this. One explanation that does NOT leap to mind is "God made it that way".

quote:

---

The moon is not 4.6 billion yrs old. Not even close.

---

Rocks brought back from the moon contain zircon crystals. Zircons crystallize only after 80 to 85 percent of a volume of molten rock has solidified. By understanding how uranium within the zirconium breaks down into lead, scientists believe they know when the crystals formed with an error margin of less than 4 million years. The oldest zircons from the moon are about 10 million years older than the oldest yet discovered on Earth. The ages of lunar zircons identified in other studies hint that small amounts of the moon’s crust remained molten for another 200 million to 400 million years. - source: How old is the moon? | Science BuzzBy the way, using this technique, scientists landed on the 4.6 billion year old figure for the moon.What have you to say about that?Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

LOL ... so , since a Nazi believes in God (a smart Nazi), I should too? Sorry, I fail to see the significance.

quote:

---

I wasn't talking merely of Triton, I was talking about ALL moons in retrograde motion.

---

Of course I realise you weren't talking merely of Triton... I WAS. I was pointing out that Triton is THE ONLY LARGE MOON in our solar system with a retrograde motion.I can't cite the following statement from any particlar source, but it stands to reason (to me anyway) that retrograde motion (whether in an orbit or in the spinning on its axis) probably develops quite a lot easier in a smaller body than a larger one, given the energies involved.Retrograde orbits and rotations are the leftovers of the great billiards game that formed our solar system. I fail to see how they are any sort of evidence of intelligent design.

quote:

---

(creation) fills the intellectual void of nothingness and explains not only WHAT happened but WHY it happened and WHO did it all.

---

IT DOES?!?!Ok then enlighten us. What happened? Why did it happen? Who did it all? Note: your explanations should use scientific terminology so it can be universally understood by all peoples across the globe regardless of religious inclination, and must be supported by evidence.I still haven't gotten an answer from you about the 4.6 billion year old moon and what you think of the zircon crystal evidence.Your way of thinking is hopelessly useless to those of us that expect logic and reason in our arguments. It sounds to me that you are trying to say religion has all the answers, but that we must be willing to take it all on "faith". Hogwash.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

quote:

---

But if you would like to see just one of my sources:

​

The moon's recession and age - creation.com

​

A rather complete discussion of the whole issue.

---

Am I the only one that has a problem with this "source", considering that the first sentence in the second paragraph starts out with "According to Genesis 1:14—18, God spoke the moon into existence as a unique celestial body on Day 4 of the Creation Week." ?I'm sure Hindu origin mythologies have some explanation for the moon. Let's do a little thought experiment. How could we compare the Hindu "moon origin myth" to the Christian "moon origin myth" with any measure of fairness or equality? Any ideas? Well, the answer is we can't because they would both proceed from a statement in an ancient text which in no way constitutes (even remotely) any form of evidence (direct or inferred) upon which we can proceed. Science doesn't have this problem. We can debate (quite heatedly) the origins of the moon, fully accepting in advance that we might never know for sure, but ideas here and there can be dismissed based on new evidence etc.Your source is getting a read at this moment (grudgingly) by myself, even though I REALLY struggled to get past the "day 4 of the Creation Week" thing. What nonsense lol.

From your "source":

quote:

---

Reconstructing ancient continental configurations is ‘exceedingly difficult’,64,65 yet attempts have continued to link plate tectonics with past oceanic energy dissipation.66,67 From a creationist perspective, doubts exist about whether plate tectonics has occurred in the conventional sense.68

---

Not a surprise. Geologists and scientists in general were slow on the uptake regarding plate tectonics. No surprise that creationsts would be even slower.

quote:

---

Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value.

---

Ok that's just laughable hehehe. 6,000 years ago the dog was first being domesticated. Not surprising that a lot of creationists do NOT agree with this view, as you must throw out pretty much every shred of evidence we've accumulated to come to a conclusion of 6,000 years.I honestly can't read any more hehe. I feel as though I am reading some sort of "The Onion of Science".

As Dman so eloquently pointed out, you are using special pleading, a logical fallacy. How are we meant to engage in a logical discussion if you are not bound by logic?You can keep pasting your little jpegs all day long, and it doesn't get any of us closer to suddenly deciding to throw reason and logic out the window and jump onto the bandwagon with you and Jesus.I'd suggest this thread be closed purely on the basis that you are spouting religious dogma instead of addressing the interesting question that you posed in the first place, that of the origins of retrograde motion. You continue to ignore the questions we put to you, you repeatedly engage in special pleading, and you continue with your little jpeg game. Wanna know how I can turn that first picture into that last? Photoshop. Wanna know how gas cloads coalesce into solar systems? Go back to school (and not in Kansas).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1AXbpYndGc&feature=fvwDecent video that addresses your little jpeg game. Give it a look, or just ignore it and post the jpegs again (my money is on the latter).