Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Creationist Earth-Moon separation nonsense.
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 30 (102492)
04-24-2004 10:33 PM


...sorry bout that
so what's this about the moon and the earth ???

  
usncahill
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 30 (104857)
05-03-2004 2:05 AM


just wondering why no creationists have said anything on this matter... or did they all reply to you eta? and is ringo a creationist or devil's advocate? just trying to catch up.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 05-03-2004 2:30 AM usncahill has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 30 (104865)
05-03-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by usncahill
05-03-2004 2:05 AM


usncahill writes:
just wondering why no creationists have said anything on this matter... or did they all reply to you eta? and is ringo a creationist or devil's advocate? just trying to catch up.
Because creationists know they can't argue with math. Heck, I'm a physics major and I didn't feel like reading through that first post closely. I just speed read through it.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by usncahill, posted 05-03-2004 2:05 AM usncahill has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 30 (104871)
05-03-2004 3:01 AM


Ringo is a nihilistic creavolutionist who advocates for God...

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 30 (109832)
05-22-2004 5:24 AM


i didn't particularly feel like reading the math part either, but the information doesn't sound right to me.
the current scientific model has the moon exiting the roche limit at about that time. the current model i heard involves a mars-sized planet smashing into the earth during the early solar system's bombardment phase, shattering the planet, and spewing magma out hard and fast enough to achieve escape velocity.
this fits all the current evidence of the moon, including the fact that due to it's eccentric shape and orbittal lock with the earth it must have been formed out of molten rock initially.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-22-2004 12:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 21 of 30 (109896)
05-22-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by arachnophilia
05-22-2004 5:24 AM


You have misunderstood the purpose of the post
There is no way to make any comment upon the formation of the Moon based upon the dynamical changes in it's orbit.
I was just showing that the often made Creationist claim that the Earth-Moon system cannot be very old because of the orbital changes is CRAP.
You are correct, the currently accepted Moon orign theory involves the impact of a large object with the Earth. That is a separate issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2004 5:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2004 4:59 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 30 (109957)
05-23-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Eta_Carinae
05-22-2004 12:56 PM


Re: You have misunderstood the purpose of the post
There is no way to make any comment upon the formation of the Moon based upon the dynamical changes in it's orbit.
no, but it is one of the factors which dictates the current theory. i'm not making this up, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-22-2004 12:56 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-23-2004 11:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 23 of 30 (109993)
05-23-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by arachnophilia
05-23-2004 4:59 AM


Re: You have misunderstood the purpose of the post
Yes you are making it up.
You have misunderstood what you may have read on this topic.
I was addressing the change in the Earth-Moon separation over the last few billion years - a topic which creationists use as "evidence" against the Earth-Moon system being old. I showed this is not a problem and that the creationist material on this is basically lying for an agenda.
This has nothing to do with the formation of the Moon at all really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2004 4:59 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2004 9:45 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 30 (110044)
05-23-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Eta_Carinae
05-23-2004 11:22 AM


Re: You have misunderstood the purpose of the post
it has everything to do with the formation of the moon.
the creationist argument is that they moon must have been formed in the last 6000 year because of it's recession from the earth. good calculation, of course, shows this to be in error, and puts that formation date, where the moon lies outside the roche limit, to be about 4 billion years ago.
is this not what you calculated?
i was just pointing out that your data doesn't precisely coincide with the "official" data, but is certainly sufficient in disproving any creationist claim of a young earth-moon system.
the rate of recession/distance, however, along with angular momentum, the rotation/revolution lock, shape, mass, and composition of the moon all play a roll in determining the moon formation theory. if for instance, the moon did not have the rotational lock with the earth due to it's shape, it had to have formed independently of the system, out of hard bodies. however, the facts indicate liquid formation. if the moon were closer, and receding faster, it might indicate capture if the formation happened while life was present. if the moon were formed with an iron core, it would place its age a little older, with the formation of the solar system. instead, it appears to be formed from PART of larger mass (the earth) that had already been sorted by density.
it may have been a little off topic, though.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-23-2004 08:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-23-2004 11:22 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2004 9:58 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 26 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-23-2004 11:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 30 (110047)
05-23-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
05-23-2004 9:45 PM


Re: You have misunderstood the purpose of the post
it has everything to do with the formation of the moon.
I don't understand your point. Eta was simply saying that it doesn't matter how the moon formed to debunk the moon recession issue.
Are you disagreeing or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2004 9:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 26 of 30 (110050)
05-23-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
05-23-2004 9:45 PM


Reply
it has everything to do with the formation of the moon.
the creationist argument is that they moon must have been formed in the last 6000 year because of it's recession from the earth. good calculation, of course, shows this to be in error, and puts that formation date, where the moon lies outside the roche limit, to be about 4 billion years ago.
is this not what you calculated?
Well indirectly you could say that. I am just saying a calculation shows that the Moon was not close enough in the last few thousand years to cause problems for life on the Earth. That is the issue Creationists usually bring up - the idea the tides on the Earth would have been too high.
The point I am making with you is that no model such as this can make any definitive statements about the formation of the Moon - i.e. exactly when - there are too many variables that are imprecisely known to make exact statements with respect to the time of the Moon's formation
i was just pointing out that your data doesn't precisely coincide with the "official" data, but is certainly sufficient in disproving any creationist claim of a young earth-moon system.
Actually I know of know official data on this issue. The only data I have seen was using a less sophisticated calculation than I did - though I believe there are some more sophisticated models with respect to the energy dissipation in the Earth's oceans.
I am actually thinking of researching this over the summer and writing a paper on this.
the rate of recession/distance, however, along with angular momentum, the rotation/revolution lock, shape, mass, and composition of the moon all play a roll in determining the moon formation theory. if for instance, the moon did not have the rotational lock with the earth due to it's shape, it had to have formed independently of the system, out of hard bodies. however, the facts indicate liquid formation. if the moon were closer, and receding faster, it might indicate capture if the formation happened while life was present. if the moon were formed with an iron core, it would place its age a little older, with the formation of the solar system. instead, it appears to be formed from PART of larger mass (the earth) that had already been sorted by density.
Yes it is a complex problem. You have some details in the above paragraph that are wrong though. One thing I didn't put in my original post, but I did calculate it was the time for the Moon to become tidally locked with the Earth - it wasn't always so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2004 9:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 05-24-2004 2:08 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 30 (110072)
05-24-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Eta_Carinae
05-23-2004 11:12 PM


Re: Reply
I don't understand your point. Eta was simply saying that it doesn't matter how the moon formed to debunk the moon recession issue.
Are you disagreeing or not?
no, i guess not. nevermind.
i'll uhh, go sit in the corner now, eta.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-23-2004 11:12 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2004 4:22 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 30 (110079)
05-24-2004 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
05-24-2004 2:08 AM


Re: Reply
At the same time eta suggest you have something in your comments. I really don't know what is right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 05-24-2004 2:08 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 30 (111697)
05-31-2004 1:03 AM


oh wow
I didn't know the moon came from the earth, funny but the first thing it reminded me off was creating somebody from the rib of someone else...
...ya feel me ???

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 8:46 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 30 (112586)
06-03-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RingoKid
05-31-2004 1:03 AM


Re: oh wow
lol nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RingoKid, posted 05-31-2004 1:03 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024