Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 196 of 222 (528804)
10-07-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
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.
Your concluding remarks are to admit that "the constant k" is not a constant.
One mystery remains, which is why, if you admit that it is not a constant, you call it a constant.
I can think of one reason why you would do something so mindbogglingly stupid, but the moderators on this forum would not approve of my explanation.
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.
Wow. A creationist just mentioned the existence of rhythmites, quoted a paper proving that the Earth is old, and said that this would "undoubtedly go right over the heads of his opponents".
Here's a tip. If you wish to make false statements about the age of the Earth, don't mention rhythmites. Hush them up. This proof that the Earth is old is not something you want to talk about. We know that you're wrong, but you could at least pretend that you're right, you don't have to rub everyone's noses into how appallingly wrong you are.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 197 of 222 (528805)
10-07-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by slevesque
10-06-2009 11:58 PM


Re: Nope
I don't want to listen to the whole video, could you give the exact time he talks about this ?
If you're asking how long he talks: about 39 minutes; 13 minutes per video.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 11:58 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 12:41 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 10-07-2009 8:39 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 198 of 222 (528807)
10-07-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Nope
slevesque writes:
I don't want to listen to the whole video, could you give the exact time he talks about this ?
Calypsis writes:
If you're asking how long he talks: about 39 minutes; 13 minutes per video.
Wow. Calypsis can in fact misunderstand everything.
There is apparently no sentence in the English language so simple, clear, and plain, that Calypsis can't manage to misinterpret it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:34 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 199 of 222 (528808)
10-07-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
10-07-2009 12:33 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
Wow. A creationist just mentioned the existence of rhythmites, quoted a paper proving that the Earth is old, and said that this would "undoubtedly go right over the heads of his opponents
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Izanagi, posted 10-07-2009 1:31 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 2:22 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 200 of 222 (528810)
10-07-2009 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
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.
If you're going to use something, try understand the big picture.
Scienceblog.com looks into your source and interestingly enough, it says that earliest date of those formations was from roughly 900 ma. That lies within the late Precambrian but the Precambrian spans 4500 ma (4.5 billion years) to 542 ma. This also closely corresponds to TalkOrigins article on moon recession where they mentioned what the Williams reported lunar recession from 650 ma to now was. TalkOrigins also mentions that Williams calculated the rate of retreat from 2500 ma to 650 ma.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 201 of 222 (528813)
10-07-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
I merely pointed out that from their perspective the evidence that they interpret as the lunar regression has not changed since pre-cambrian times.
No, it states from the late Precambrian. The Precambrian Eon spanned 4500 ma to 542 ma and the data only goes back as far as 900 ma. Get your facts straight. There's still a couple of billion years that you haven't accounted for.
That means the value of k can be variable, and is proven variable by older tidal rhythmites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:48 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 222 (528815)
10-07-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
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.
Mad people are funny.
But the plain facts are that physics and astronomy are against you. Reality 1, creationists 0. As usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:48 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(3)
Message 203 of 222 (528817)
10-07-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:14 AM


Deal with the evidence please
quote:
and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian."
There is plenty of research out there on tidal rhythmites which are older than this too. For example:
Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbit
quote:
Paleotidal and paleorotational values provided by late Neoproterozoic (∼620 Ma) tidal rhythmites in South Australia are validated by these tests and indicate 13.1 0.1 synodic (lunar) months/yr, 400 7 solar days/yr, a length of day of 21.9 0.4 h, and a relative Earth-Moon distance a/a 0 of 0.965 0.005. The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17 0.31 cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 0.07 cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging . . . The combined rhythmite data give a mean rate of lunar recession of 1.24 0.71 cm/yr during most of the Proterozoic (2450-620 Ma), suggesting that a close approach of the Moon did not occur during earlier time. Concentrated study of Precambrian tidal rhythmites promises to illuminate the evolving dynamics of the early Earth-Moon system and may permit the lunar orbit to be traced back to near the time of the Moon’s origin.
So we're looking at over half of the earth's geological history and the evidence from sedimentary rock whose deposition rate was influenced by tides, shows us that the moon was nowhere near perilously close.
I can't help but notice (as has been observed by at least one other person on this thread) that you will use one kind of evidence to try to support your argument, and reject that same kind of evidence when it doesn't suit your purposes. I don't recall you telling us how old you think the earth is but I assume you believe it to be 6,000 years. Rhythmites, particularly varves, are some of the best evidence that the earth is much, much older than this, though that's a topic for another thread.
quote:
direct eyewitness testimony of the dozens of observers to volcanic activity on the lunar surface
Problem is, these are accounts of people looking at the moon and seeing stuff. Some are hundreds of years old. We can't talk to any of these people today and we can't be certain about the reliability of such historical testaments (no doubt difficult for a Biblical literalist to understand but there you go). I've had a look at Herschel's claims and it's difficult to distinguish what he actually saw from what he assumed he saw, since the two are pretty well merged (i.e. he assumed that there were volcanoes on the moon so that's what he thought he was seeing). Nothing he described is incongruous with a meteor impact, so why by your reckoning is this not an acceptable possibility? By the way, you do know that people used to think they were seeing alien-sculpted canals and green vegetation on Mars? Using your brand of epistemology, we should believe this too. I guess the Martians got rid of all the evidence before we built better telescopes and then started sending probes and rovers out there. Clever.
Actually, I think the biggest problem you have with your young moon idea is radiometric dates for moon rocks. You made the silliest of hand-waving gestures by saying that they're simply based on preconceived notions. You honestly don't seem to realise that saying, "not true" is not an acceptable attack on any kind of evidenced theory or process. Slevesque tried to tell you this. The fact that you maintain this attitude with Cavediver, a physicist and cosmologist, is an endless source of amusement.
Thing is, the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have nothing to do with preconceived notions. This is like saying that we only have a 24-hour day because we programmed our watches with preconceived notions about how long a day ought to be. You need to explain, using evidence, your objections to radiometric dating of moon rocks, or else your whole idea flies out the window. In Message 92 I gave you some dates to look at. Notice that these are dates obtained by two or more methods, and notice that all the dates on the chart show consilience; that is, they agree. Different people, different labs, different methods. I await your detailed reply.
Edited by LindaLou, : typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 222 (528819)
10-07-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:14 AM


People Who Watched Vocanos On The Moon
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.
I'd mock you, but the challenge is gone.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 205 of 222 (528841)
10-07-2009 8:26 AM


Moderator Advisory
Hi all!
Just a reminder that this thread is in one of the science forums, so arguments should be scientific rather than religious, and of course focused on the scientific evidence.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 206 of 222 (528843)
10-07-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:34 AM


Moderator Request
Hi Calypsis4,
You posted this link to a DeYoung video that is the second in a series of three:
Would you please do two things:
  1. Please bring the evidence and arguments into this thread and just use the video as a supporting reference. The Forum Guidelines are clear about this:
    1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
  2. The beginning of the video consists of religious arguments, but this is a science thread. The video is about 12 minutes long, so please provide the precise times in the video where the scientific evidence about volcanic activity on the moon is presented, as Dr Adequate requested.
Thank you.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:34 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 9:12 AM Admin has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 207 of 222 (528857)
10-07-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Admin
10-07-2009 8:39 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Please bring the evidence and arguments into this thread and just use the video as a supporting reference. The Forum Guidelines are clear about this
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 10-07-2009 8:39 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Admin, posted 10-07-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 208 of 222 (528868)
10-07-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 9:12 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Hi Calypsis4,
The request was to bring the evidence and arguments from the video into the discussion. If the video is only describing the same eyewitness testimony you've already described then you need merely say so.
And also, please provide the precise times in the video where the scientific evidence is presented.
Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 9:12 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:19 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 209 of 222 (528869)
10-07-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Admin
10-07-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising.
Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Admin, posted 10-07-2009 10:16 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by dokukaeru, posted 10-07-2009 10:24 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 211 by Theodoric, posted 10-07-2009 10:28 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 210 of 222 (528870)
10-07-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 10:19 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Calypsis4 writes:
Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising.
Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning.
Have a nice day.
Respectfully, You have not even come close to addressing the issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:19 AM Calypsis4 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