Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

But it is not at a constant distance, and 6days says the distance is changing. So what is meant by the “right” distance, and “right” size? And once again you use a fancy sounding, but scientifically vacuous phrase – “perfect orbit”. “Perfect” meaning what – apogee, perigee, inclination to the ecliptic? It sounds to me like “perfect” must mean there could have been no better orbital parameters. What significant difference would it have made if the moon had been a bit closer, or farther, or had a bit more (or less) eccentric orbit, or if it’s orbit had been tilted more (or less)?

Alter the moon a little bit and the tides becomes so monstrous as to destroy land life. That would be less than perfect.

 

[patrick jane]

But it is not at a constant distance, and 6days says the distance is changing. So what is meant by the “right” distance, and “right” size? And once again you use a fancy sounding, but scientifically vacuous phrase – “perfect orbit”. “Perfect” meaning what – apogee, perigee, inclination to the ecliptic? It sounds to me like “perfect” must mean there could have been no better orbital parameters. What significant difference would it have made if the moon had been a bit closer, or farther, or had a bit more (or less) eccentric orbit, or if it’s orbit had been tilted more (or less)?

it could be that the moon is in the perfect orbit (roughly) for life on earth -

I'm more of a casual poster, 6Days would know more than me, as well as practically everyone on this thread. Good questions that could be researched -

 

[patrick jane]

Genesis 1:16 KJV - Genesis 1:17 KJV -

 

[patrick jane]

Thank you 6days, for the response, but I probably won’t be sticking around long, since, as these past few posts on the orbit of the moon have shown, some religious people like to misuse science as window dressing to make religious beliefs more palatable. Reading what was said in just a few posts, it ranged from the moon’s orbit “is” perfect, to the orbit is no longer perfect, to gotta be perfect for life, to there is life even though orbit is not still perfect, to we don’t know what the orbit actually was a few thousand years ago. Best if you and patrick jane (assuming you are of similar religious views) get together and come up with a consistent set of arguments. Even you said the orbit was no longer perfect, but seemed to be unable to tell what it was about the orbit that previously made it “perfect”.

I have a lot of friends who have firm religious beliefs, but know better than to go around spouting meaningless hyperbole about a perfect moon orbit.

Stick around until the other atheist evolutionists come back !!

 

[patrick jane]

Redfern, I must admit that I watched it on the History Channel, and it said the moon has a perfect orbit and that's a zillion to one. I immediately posted it without thinking, sorry.

 

[patrick jane]

. What significant difference would it have made if the moon had been a bit closer, or farther, or had a bit more (or less) eccentric orbit, or if it’s orbit had been tilted more (or less)?

Earth shattering differences -

 

[6days]

Earth shattering differences -

Astrophysicist Jason Lisle calculates that the recession rate of the moon would not be constant, but at the current rate, our moon would have been 250 meters closer 6000 years ago. ( insignificant)
However, the recession rate would not be constant. He calculates that 1.5 billion years ago them moon would touching the earth. That causes a problem for evolutionists. The formula he used for his calculations...(and beyond my pay grade)
k = r6dr/dt = (384,401 km)6 x (0.000038 km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year
∫0T dt = ∫0R (r6/k)dr
T = R7/(7k)
(since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.) From AIG

 

[patrick jane]

Astrophysicist Jason Lisle calculates that the recession rate of the moon would not be constant, but at the current rate, our moon would have been 250 meters closer 6000 years ago. ( insignificant)
However, the recession rate would not be constant. He calculates that 1.5 billion years ago them moon would touching the earth. That causes a problem for evolutionists. The formula he used for his calculations...(and beyond my pay grade)
k = r6dr/dt = (384,401 km)6 x (0.000038 km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year
∫0T dt = ∫0R (r6/k)dr
T = R7/(7k)

Just one of countless facts pointing to a Creator -

 

[Rosenritter]

Just one of countless facts pointing to a Creator -

There's lots all over the place if one has their eyes open. Eyes, for example. Amazing things, so many different ones. Lobster eyes bounce the light down a shaft and the angle has to be "just right" for the light to even hit the receptors. Wonder how many millions of lobster generations died blind before they accidentally got the angle of that shaft right...

http://creation.com/lobster-eye-design

 

[gcthomas]

Astrophysicist Jason Lisle calculates

You mean Full Time YEC Apologist Jason Lisle, who openly rejects science which he considers conflicts with an inerrant Bible, calculates ..., surely?

that the recession rate of the moon would not be constant, but at the current rate, our moon would have been 250 meters closer 6000 years ago. ( insignificant)
However, the recession rate would not be constant. He calculates that 1.5 billion years ago them moon would touching the earth. That causes a problem for evolutionists. The formula he used for his calculations...(and beyond my pay grade)

… but not beyond mine. The formula he uses contains no allowance for continental drift, of ocean flow friction and energy dissipation, etc. In fact, all he has done is to fit a curve to a graph with one point on it without attempting to justify the shape of the curve. This isn't extrapolation, but fabrication.

Shameful, relly.

k = r6dr/dt = (384,401 km)6 x (0.000038 km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year
∫0T dt = ∫0R (r6/k)dr
T = R7/(7k)
(since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.) From AIG

Tidal forces may be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, but that is not the sole or even dominant factor, as I pointed out some time before you posted this (you didn't read/understand it, did you?). His model has no basis in fact and is supported only by his/your desire to have something to look superficially like science so you can try to hang on its coat-tails.

Come on, 6d, time to be honest. Creationists rely on faith, and science does not support YECism. Isn't your faith enough? Why try to dress it up as science when you so obviously do not like the fundamentals of science?

 

[redfern]

And, we also notice the same thing you do, in how evolutionists misuse science to make it fit their belief system.

Patrick and I likely agree on many things, but not all. It is no different with evolutionists...it's unlikely any two agree with everything.

I’m not sure why the repeated reference to “evolutionists”. I don’t think I have said anything about evolution (assuming you mean Darwin’s theory). Is “evolutionist” some kind of umbrella term you use for branches of science you disagree with?

...the word perfect might mean something different to different people.

I was interested in what it meant to you. Patrick jane admitted he was pretty much just parroting what he had heard on a TV history program. But you jumped in and declared that the orbit is no longer perfect, yet you seem to be really nebulous about what has changed to make it less than perfect. I am afraid you leave me with the impression you just saw a chance to root for the creationist viewpoint, with no real scientific understanding backing your words.

...it really isn't an issue to get too worked up about.

Okaaay, I take this as tacit admission that what you say about scientific things may be more motivated by religious belief than based on scientific understanding?

 

[Stripe]

You mean Full Time YEC Apologist Jason Lisle, who openly rejects science which he considers conflicts with an inerrant Bible, calculates.

When will the Darwinists learn to eschew nonsense and engage rationally?

 

[Stripe]

but not beyond mine.

You shouldn't say such bold things and then immediately undermine your claim by using terms that have no place in a discussion over tidal-driven, two-body recession.

The formula he uses contains no allowance for continental drift, of ocean flow friction and energy dissipation, etc.

None of those things play any part in the process.

Do you even know how gravity works?

Shameful, really.

Tidal forces may be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, but that is not the sole or even dominant factor.

:darwinsm:

Can you name another force that pulls things around at great distance with no physical connection?

Oh, my. You are out of your depth. :chuckle:

Come on, GC, time to be honest. Darwinists rely on faith, and science does not support evolutionism. Isn't your faith enough? Why try to dress it up as science when you so obviously do not like the fundamentals?

 

[Tyrathca]

None of those things play any part in the process.

And you know this how? Given you are apparently so knowledgeable about the subject what factors do play a part?

Do you even know how gravity works?

Clearly you don't

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

And you know this how?

:darwinsm:

Because I know how gravity works.

It's pretty simple: This case involves masses at distance to each other. There can be no friction involved.

Clearly you don't

:rotfl:

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[redfern]

Alter the moon a little bit and the tides becomes so monstrous as to destroy land life.

Maybe you and I have different ideas of what is meant by “a little bit”. As far as orbital distance from the earth, the distance to the moon varies by about 40,000 km every month right now. I live fairly close to ocean, and I seldom pay any attention to how far away the moon happens to be on the days I watch the tides. As far as destroying land life, are you saying the mountain goats high in the Rockies are going to drown if the moon is altered “a little bit”? I would like to see your calculations for that.

That would be less than perfect.

Well, I guess that is one criterion for defining whether the moon’s orbit is “perfect”, but not one I have seen in any astrophysics text. Are you saying the moon’s orbit is “perfect” now, since I am not swimming to work in salt water?

 

[redfern]

Can you name another force that pulls things around at great distance with no physical connection?

Electrostatic fields? Magnetic fields (within the dipole limitations)?

 

[Stripe]

Electrostatic fields? Magnetic fields (within the dipole limitations)?

Dear God, what did we do to deserve such stupidity?

We're talking about the Earth-moon system, genius.

 

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm:

Because I know how gravity works.

It's pretty simple: This case involves masses at distance to each other. There can be no friction involved.

:rotfl:

:mock: Darwinists.

The friction is between the sea and the Earth, fool. How else is the tidal bulge dragged around by the rotation of the Earth away from the cislunar point?

Sheesh, didn't you learn anything at college?

 

[Stripe]

The friction is between the sea and the Earth, fool. How else is the tidal bulge dragged around by the rotation of the Earth away from the cislunar point?

Does it suck having to get out of bed each morning knowing you have to go through another day being so retarded?

We're talking about the Earth-moon system. Of course friction exists, but it doesn't do anything to change how gravity works.

Sheesh, didn't you learn anything at college?