Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Good grief, the intellectual ability on this thread wouldn't fill a thimble.

Give documentated data that the 4 cm/yr regression was different in the distant past.

Point: I am not saying that it wasn't different .....

..... but the explanations for it have been given!

Call Don DeYoung and talk to him. You can get in touch with him through Grace College: Grace College a Christian College in Indiana - Grace CollegeShow some personal initiative and stop bellyaching at me over something you should already know!

I think they do adress the possibility that k is not constant:

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’.

The Bible is a written account of the history of the world from creation until the time of Christ. If you can't accept that as authoritative then we are at an impass. Nonetheless, since I have seen miraculous power, instantaneous healings, & supernatural occurrences on a number of occasions, and because true science comports with divine revelation, I utterly reject the skeptics position that the blind forces of natures made all things.

The primary cause of lunar recession is the tides of the earth’s oceans.49,50 Friction between ocean water and the earth causes the earth to lose rotation energy and therefore angular momentum. Momentum conservation requires that the moon gain angular momentum in an equal degree, so the moon accelerates in its orbit, with a resulting recession from the earth.51 Analysis of astronomical and historical evidence dating back 2,700 years to Babylonian civilization shows that the day has lengthened by an average of 1.7 milliseconds per century, consistent with the earth’s slowing rotation rate.50,52As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past .’53In 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’.57Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved,58 and Goldreich searched for possible causes.59 Lambeck concluded,

Hi slevesque - I'm sorry but I have to say this: you are far too smart to be a creationist, and you will not last long

Back to your diagram. The degree of acceleration on the Moon caused by the bulge is directly related to the lag angle (angle between the bulge axis NA and the Earth-Moon axis NM). The earth was spinning faster in the past, which increased the lag angle. Now, do you think that this dynamic process is addressed by DeYoung's approach?

You probably stopped at the equations I would guess, in which they use a constant k. This discuss a variable k further down the article.

Any-whoo...the change in k would yelled a different result

...dates of the lunar rocks

The talkorigins article, however, suggests that the tidal dissipation should have been smaller in the past. They refer to Stacey's book 'physics of the earth' (1977) for this. I don't know how they arrive at this conclusion.

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.

Calypsis has failed to comply. FAIL.

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.