Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

It is no longer perfect and is slowly getting further and further from earth. Scripture tells us that all creation now groans. However our moon is still pretty awesome, and without it our oceans would be dead.

Our moon is receding from the earth at about 4cm per year. Extrapolating that backwards, and factoring in the effects of increased gravitational pull, four billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the earth, and that doesn't work... with the theories on the age of the earth. one theory proposes that our moon was formed after a 'nuclear explosion' on earth.
http://www.physorg.com/news183884450.html
Another theory is that a mars sized meteorite crashed into the earth sending debris into space. But, the 'theory' that best fits the evidence is that in the beginning, God created?

The Moon's speed of recession is related to the mechanism of energy dissipation. Do you know what that is, and why extrapolating modern rates is both theoretically incompetent and empirically disproven?

 

[redfern]

Perfect for life on earth - tides, gravity etc. Without the moon, life on earth would not exist. That's called perfect

But it was not the existence of the moon you said was perfect. You specifically said it was the moon’s orbit that was perfect. The poster called 6days said the orbit is no longer perfect, yet I see that there is currently life on earth. What made the orbit perfect before, since 6days says it isn’t perfect now?

 

[6days]

The poster called 6days said the orbit is no longer perfect, yet I see that there is currently life on earth. What made the orbit perfect before, since 6days says it isn’t perfect now?

Welcome to TOL...hope you keep posting. Have you seen 'Where the Red Fern Grows'?... good movie!

Creation was perfect...creation was cursed...all creation now groans. We still see evidences of that perfection in the world around us. We don't know the precise orbit of the moon 6000 years ago, but it isn't exactly the same now as it was then.

 

[6days]

...extrapolating modern rates is both theoretically incompetent and empirically disproven

Lets remember that when it comes to all your extrapolated beliefs about the past.

 

[Rosenritter]

But it was not the existence of the moon you said was perfect. You specifically said it was the moon’s orbit that was perfect. The poster called 6days said the orbit is no longer perfect, yet I see that there is currently life on earth. What made the orbit perfect before, since 6days says it isn’t perfect now?

Perfect can have more than one meaning or even multiple applications in the same reference. It's good to ask for clarification as to the speaker's intent, rather than pouncing on one possibility of contradiction.

 

[Rosenritter]

Looking good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awpzsi4YUHs

Anyone want to volunteer to watch this online and report back with me? Preferably at least one professed atheist from this thread so we cover both angles?

 

[intojoy]

Dear intojoy,

I am definitely saved!! No doubts whatsoever!! How about you? How sure are you?? You don't even know me well enough to know that I am saved already. I've also been baptized first, by the Holy Ghost {twice, and secondly, about three years ago, I was baptized in a baptismal pool of water. So I'm all set to go!! I still go to Church there. I love everyone there and we have a good time singing hymns, and giving each other hugs and having fellowship. It is a rare church that I found. I grew up going to a Church of the Nazarene. That is where I asked Jesus to come into my heart. I now go to a nice Baptist Church that is more like a Nazarene Church than a Baptist Church, and I love it. Thanks anyway, intojoy.

May God Give You Wisdom Tempered With A Loving Heart,

Michael

Not convinced


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[gcthomas]

Lets remember that when it comes to all your extrapolated beliefs about the past.

I take it from your avoidance that you can't answer the simple question. The answer, of course, is that since the tidal effects on the Moon in it's orbit are due to the non radial gravitational effect of the tidal bulge of the oceans, then the bulge will be further from the cislunar point when there is more resistance to the flow of water across the Earth. Particularly, this is to do with the proportion and positioning of the shallow continental shelves and the continents.

The current arrangement of the continents produces an unusually large amount of energy dissipation, according to those that model such things, so the rate of recession of the Moon is currently unusually great. Hence the comment about not being able to simply extrapolate a constant rate unrestricted into the past.

But, you are not interested in reality, are you? You'd rather dismiss unwelcome ideas without analysis as that is substantially cognitively easier on your remaining brain cells.

So, take it easy. Rest the grey matter. Ignore reality if it makes you happier.

 

[Rosenritter]

I take it from your avoidance that you can't answer the simple question. The answer, of course, is that since the tidal effects on the Moon in it's orbit are due to the non radial gravitational effect of the tidal bulge of the oceans, then the bulge will be further from the cislunar point when there is more resistance to the flow of water across the Earth. Particularly, this is to do with the proportion and positioning of the shallow continental shelves and the continents.

The current arrangement of the continents produces an unusually large amount of energy dissipation, according to those that model such things, so the rate of recession of the Moon is currently unusually great. Hence the comment about not being able to simply extrapolate a constant rate unrestricted into the past.

But, you are not interested in reality, are you? You'd rather dismiss unwelcome ideas without analysis as that is substantially cognitively easier on your remaining brain cells.

So, take it easy. Rest the grey matter. Ignore reality if it makes you happier.

How long do you think our moon has been above the earth, and how do you think it got there?

 

[gcthomas]

How long do you think our moon has been above the earth, and how do you think it got there?

I'd go with the commonly accepted scientific explanation and caveats. They are easy to look up.

What issues do you have with them?

 

[Rosenritter]

I'd go with the commonly accepted scientific explanation and caveats. They are easy to look up.

What issues do you have with them?

I would have the same issue as with anyone who recites a creed or confession of faith and expects that should be beyond review.

 

[redfern]

Welcome to TOL...hope you keep posting. …

We don't know the precise orbit of the moon 6000 years ago, but it isn't exactly the same now as it was then.

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.

 

[redfern]

Perfect can have more than one meaning or even multiple applications in the same reference. It's good to ask for clarification as to the speaker's intent, rather than pouncing on one possibility of contradiction.

I put no limits on what I asked for, beyond scientific clarification on a blatantly scientific claim. In response I primarily got religious obfuscation. And, if you what you saw in those posts was just one “possibility” of contradiction, then you need to read a bit more carefully.

 

[gcthomas]

I would have the same issue as with anyone who recites a creed or confession of faith and expects that should be beyond review.

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said. Please, critique to your heart's content. I invited you to discuss the issues you have, so I'm hardly preventing a review, only a pointless retelling of what you can find out easily yourself.

 

[patrick jane]

Only time will tell, so what is so wrong with playing 'wait and see??' There are many instances in the Bible which depended on 'wait and see.'


Michael

You're not in the Bible Michael

 

[patrick jane]

I put no limits on what I asked for, beyond scientific clarification on a blatantly scientific claim. In response I primarily got religious obfuscation. And, if you what you saw in those posts was just one “possibility” of contradiction, then you need to read a bit more carefully.

When I said the moon has a perfect orbit I used the term perfect rather loosely. I meant that it's the right distance and size combined with a seemingly perfect orbit.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said. Please, critique to your heart's content. I invited you to discuss the issues you have, so I'm hardly preventing a review, only a pointless retelling of what you can find out easily yourself.

You gave an answer with no real content. Furthermore, I cannot assume that what you mean by scientific is in agreement with what I mean by scientific. I was wanting your answer, rather than a generic assumption that you are "in agreement" with whatever happens to be the most popular.

No hostility meant, just trying to shortcut past the otherwise umpteen pages of misunderstanding. That, and how can I respond to that which is undefined? If you were to ask me I would try to give a straight answer.

 

[6days]

The current arrangement of the continents produces an unusually large amount of energy dissipation, according to those that model such things, so the rate of recession of the Moon is currently unusually great. Hence the comment about not being able to simply extrapolate a constant rate unrestricted into the past.

You seem incapable of noticing how inconsistent you are. You are eager to extrapolate constant rates to arrive at deep time conclusions....and suddenly you resist extrapolating results that contradict your beliefs.

I do agree with you now though that the present, is not always a key to the past. Our created moon causes problems to 'evolutionists', and that is why they invent explanations like nuclear explosions on earth. However, our moon is consistent with the Biblical explanation.

 

[redfern]

When I said the moon has a perfect orbit I used the term perfect rather loosely. I meant that it's the right distance and size combined with a seemingly perfect orbit.

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)?

 

[6days]

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.

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

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”.

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. However, as Someone explained to you...the word perfect might mean something different to different people. It's quite possible Patrick and I are in full agreement on the moon issue....it really isn't an issue to get too worked up about.