GoingGoldenWCU
New member
'Long time ago' as in God created that "stuff" 4.5 million years ago? Beacuse if so, I totally agree with you.
toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
'Long time ago' as in God created that "stuff" 4.5 million years ago? Beacuse if so, I totally agree with you.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Because technically, the matter that makes up the Earth and everything else (ostensibly) came originally from the big bang, and is therefore as old as the universe itself. It might have changed form from time to time, but it was still created in the beginning.
One Eyed Jack
New member
while I'm not agreeing with the argument it is true that a vase is not as old as the clay it was made from.
Shasta
Well-known member
Fascinating Math but..
Fascinating Math but..
I have not had time to do the math myself but having heard about this from other sources (much more knowledgeable thanI, I have no doubt that you are right about this. The Moon is receding from the Earth. The only reservation I have is that this reasoning rests on the questionable assumption of uniformitarianism. Sure, if I assume that the moon was formed vomited out of a molten earth then that is pretty strong evidence. However this discounts the possibility of cataclysmic change(s). The craters on the moon are evidence that many have happened. Some of those collisions were almost enough to blow the moon apart. Did a game of cosmic billiards affect its orbit and distance. Does the moon have the same mass it did originally? Present processes do not necessarily prove past events. This is the reasoning evolutionists use to prove some of their nonsense.
Interesting stuff!
Fascinating Math but..
I have not had time to do the math myself but having heard about this from other sources (much more knowledgeable thanI, I have no doubt that you are right about this. The Moon is receding from the Earth. The only reservation I have is that this reasoning rests on the questionable assumption of uniformitarianism. Sure, if I assume that the moon was formed vomited out of a molten earth then that is pretty strong evidence. However this discounts the possibility of cataclysmic change(s). The craters on the moon are evidence that many have happened. Some of those collisions were almost enough to blow the moon apart. Did a game of cosmic billiards affect its orbit and distance. Does the moon have the same mass it did originally? Present processes do not necessarily prove past events. This is the reasoning evolutionists use to prove some of their nonsense.
Interesting stuff!
it is as old as a new serpentdove thread
The current thought is that at some point early in the earth's history a collision with another large body resulted in the moon. I suspect you should google "origin of the moon"
Certainly any information you get from Stripe, especially when he cites Walt Brown's fantasies, is suspect.
the craters on the moon are evidence that it was hit many times by other bodies and that it has no atmosphere and no wind or water to erode those craters etc.
Take some time to learn some science.
BTW, the recession of the Moon from the Earth is not uniform over geologic time, because it is brought about by the transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon via tides. And the net force of the tides is a function of the coastlines of the continents, which varies over the ages.
Which requires one to first accept the assumption of geologic time. Nice circular argument, Barbie. :BRAVO:
Barbarian observes:
BTW, the recession of the Moon from the Earth is not uniform over geologic time
Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular."
BTW, the recession of the Moon from the Earth is not uniform over geologic time
Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular."
You didn't provide any evidence. I provided a mathematical formula that places a reasonable limit upon the age of the Earth-Moon system (and reasonably upon the Earth). You reject that formula with your insistence that it must not be true.
I think this is the part where you are supposed to provide evidence rather than call people stupid.
See Barbarian's post 268. He suggests that you need to look a bit beyond your mathematical formula. but I am sure you will take the easy way out and use the easy math.
Barbarian chuckles:
Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular."
You've been reminded numerous times of the evidence for the age of the Earth. Even honest creationists admit that it's true:
Coffin testified to the usual creationists' position of sudden appearances of complex organisms in the Cambrian, the absence of transitional fossils, etc. The cross-examination pointed to his scientific credibility.
Q: "You have had only two articles in standard scientific journals since getting your Ph.D. in 1955, haven't you?"
A: "That's correct."
Q: "The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?" A: "Correct."
Q: "If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?"
A: "Yes, without the Bible."
debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/ageearth.htm
Actually, you didn't. Just an unsupported assertion. But I'll do that for you:
But today the number can be observed directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year
Let's leave it at 4.0 cm/year, just to give you the benefit of a doubt and to ease calculation.
The Roche Limit (distance from the Earth at which the moon would break up from gravitational forces) is about 9,500 km.
The moon is presently about 384,000 km away. So, the present rate of recession (which as I said, changes over geologic time) would suggest 9.6 billion years to reach it's present place from the Roche limit. Pick a different distance, and I'll calculate the time for you as well. And then we can see what the tides were at that time.
See above. Nice try, Stipe. Pick the distance you figured the 12 foot tides (you do know that tides can vary as much as 48 feet in some places today, right?) and we'll show you what age that suggests.
Or you could cut and run again. Your call.
Well, that's really up to you at this point, Stipe.
Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular."
You've been reminded numerous times of the evidence for the age of the Earth. Even honest creationists admit that it's true:
Coffin testified to the usual creationists' position of sudden appearances of complex organisms in the Cambrian, the absence of transitional fossils, etc. The cross-examination pointed to his scientific credibility.
Q: "You have had only two articles in standard scientific journals since getting your Ph.D. in 1955, haven't you?"
A: "That's correct."
Q: "The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?" A: "Correct."
Q: "If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?"
A: "Yes, without the Bible."
debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/ageearth.htm
Actually, you didn't. Just an unsupported assertion. But I'll do that for you:
But today the number can be observed directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year
Let's leave it at 4.0 cm/year, just to give you the benefit of a doubt and to ease calculation.
The Roche Limit (distance from the Earth at which the moon would break up from gravitational forces) is about 9,500 km.
The moon is presently about 384,000 km away. So, the present rate of recession (which as I said, changes over geologic time) would suggest 9.6 billion years to reach it's present place from the Roche limit. Pick a different distance, and I'll calculate the time for you as well. And then we can see what the tides were at that time.
See above. Nice try, Stipe. Pick the distance you figured the 12 foot tides (you do know that tides can vary as much as 48 feet in some places today, right?) and we'll show you what age that suggests.
Or you could cut and run again. Your call.
Well, that's really up to you at this point, Stipe.
The earth is obviously older than 6,000 yrs old. Science has already proven the earth to be well beyond that with numerous methods.
Religious people sure have no problem trusting scientific methods when it comes to carbon dating some manuscript they want to justify, but when it comes to testing something that goes against their needful beliefs, then its, "mer, mer, rable rable rable"
Last edited:
Who are you arguing with? :idunno:
Is it your intention to excuse your own circular argument by pointing out that someone else might have one?
Actually, I did. The link I gave explained everything quite nicely, thank you.
Here it is again.
You could actually read it this time instead of providing nothing but wrong models, accounted for factors and a superior attitude. :thumb:
(Stipe claims the evidence for an old Earth is "circular")
Barbarian chuckles: Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular." You've been reminded numerous times of the evidence for the age of the Earth. Even honest creationists admit that it's true:
I'm just pointing out to you that even honest creationists admit that the evidence indicates an old Earth.
It won't do you much good to deny the evidence. You've seen it; you see that honest creationists admit that it exists. Time to face reality, Stipe.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, you didn't. Just an unsupported assertion. But I'll do that for you:
Sorry. If you think the link is right, present the numbers here for us.
But today the number can be observed directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year
Barbarian chuckles:
Let's leave it at 4.0 cm/year, just to give you the benefit of a doubt and to ease calculation. The Roche Limit (distance from the Earth at which the moon would break up from gravitational forces) is about 9,500 km. The moon is presently about 384,000 km away. So, the present rate of recession (which as I said, changes over geologic time) would suggest 9.6 billion years to reach it's present place from the Roche limit. Pick a different distance, and I'll calculate the time for you as well. And then we can see what the tides were at that time.
Nice try, Stipe. Pick the distance you figured the 12 foot tides (you do know that tides can vary as much as 48 feet in some places today, right?) and we'll show you what age that suggests. Or you could cut and run again. Your call. Well, that's really up to you at this point, Stipe.
(Stipe declines to answer)
Yep. The usual. If you ever get up the nerve to support your argument, tell us how far from the Earth you think the moon started, and then we'll check how much time there was, given the rate of recession. Or you could just toss another generic insult and run for cover.
Yeah, like that. Like everyone else here, I figure if you had something that refuted the numbers I gave, you'd lay it out for us.
Barbarian chuckles: Only a really, really dumb creationist thinks evidence is "circular." You've been reminded numerous times of the evidence for the age of the Earth. Even honest creationists admit that it's true:
I'm just pointing out to you that even honest creationists admit that the evidence indicates an old Earth.
It won't do you much good to deny the evidence. You've seen it; you see that honest creationists admit that it exists. Time to face reality, Stipe.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, you didn't. Just an unsupported assertion. But I'll do that for you:
Sorry. If you think the link is right, present the numbers here for us.
But today the number can be observed directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year
Barbarian chuckles:
Let's leave it at 4.0 cm/year, just to give you the benefit of a doubt and to ease calculation. The Roche Limit (distance from the Earth at which the moon would break up from gravitational forces) is about 9,500 km. The moon is presently about 384,000 km away. So, the present rate of recession (which as I said, changes over geologic time) would suggest 9.6 billion years to reach it's present place from the Roche limit. Pick a different distance, and I'll calculate the time for you as well. And then we can see what the tides were at that time.
Nice try, Stipe. Pick the distance you figured the 12 foot tides (you do know that tides can vary as much as 48 feet in some places today, right?) and we'll show you what age that suggests. Or you could cut and run again. Your call. Well, that's really up to you at this point, Stipe.
(Stipe declines to answer)
Yep. The usual. If you ever get up the nerve to support your argument, tell us how far from the Earth you think the moon started, and then we'll check how much time there was, given the rate of recession. Or you could just toss another generic insult and run for cover.
Yeah, like that. Like everyone else here, I figure if you had something that refuted the numbers I gave, you'd lay it out for us.
what makes you think the recession rate was always 4cm per year barbarian? Do you realize that the recession rate is affected by the distance to the earth and the earths rotational rate? Do you believe the continental positions have more of an affect on the recessional rates than either the distance or rotational rate of the earth?
I told you earlier that it isn't constant.
No. It's caused by energy gained by the Moon from the Earth as the result of tides.
I'd be open to your numbers saying otherwise. Show me.
Past rate of recession:
The recession of the Moon is caused by tidal friction. The larger the tidal friction, the greater the rate of Moon recession. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on a combination of the arrangement of the continents and the distance between the Earth and Moon. You can't simply pick one factor and ignore the others as AiG does.
"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." Answers in Genesis
The closer Moon of the past had a stronger effect on the tides and therefore added to the rate of recession, as cited by AiG. However, large differences in the heights of the tides around different configurations of land masses would lessen the friction and therefore tending to cause a slower rate of recession. The arrangement of the continents in the past would have caused a decrease in tidal friction. The question then is, what is the net result of these factors, some of which increase the recession, and some of which decrease the recession? Mathematical modeling has shown that the overall tidal friction would have been less in the past, therefore causing SLOWER (not greater) rate for the Moon's recession.
Also, the closer the Moon, the faster its orbit (according to Kepler's Laws). The faster its orbit, the lower the tidal frequency, therefore the lower the recession rate. At some point, the Moon's orbit would be in sync with the Earth's rotation. Then there would be no energy dissipation and no recession. This shows that the Moon's recession must have been slower in the past when the Moon was closer...The physical evidence of this slower rate comes in the form of tidal rhythmites (tidally laminated sediments). They record the velocity and range of the tides providing a method to measure tidal strengths of the past. They show that 650 million years ago, the rate of recession was about 2 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year.
"Sedimentary rhythmites of siltstone and fine sandstone from late Precambrian (c. 650-800 Ma) glaciogenic formations in South Australia are interpreted as distal ebb-tidal deposits that record variability in the velocity and range of palaeo-ebb tides. Variations in lamina thickness encode a full spectrum of palaeotidal cycles, including semidiurnal, diurnal, fortnightly and monthly tidal cycles as well as the lunar apsides (perigee) and nodal cycles. A half-yearly oscillation is attributable largely to a beat between the fortnightly tidal cycles of luni-solar conjunction and lunar declination; the lunar nodal cycle is discernible as an amplitude modulation of this beat oscillation.
The data allow determination of the Earth's palaeorotation and the past dynamics of the Earth-Moon system with an accuracy previously unattainable for the Precambrian. The late Precambrian (c. 650 Ma) year contained 13.1 (+/-0.5) lunar months and c. 400 (+/-20) days, and the late Precambrian lunar month c. 30.5 (+/-1.5) days. These value suggest an average equivalent phase lag near 3[deg] since late Precambrian time rather than the present value of 6[deg]. The period of 19.5 (+/-0.5) years determined for the lunar nodal cycle c. 650 Ma ago indicates a lunar distance 96.9 (+/- 1.7)% of the present distance. The low rate of lunar recession since late Precambrian time revealed by the rhythmite data militates against a close approach of the Moon during the Proterozoic. Precambrian sedimentary rhythmites may hold a key to the early history of the Earth's rotation."~G. E. Williams, "Late Precambrian tidal rhythmites in South Australia and the history of the Earth's Rotation," Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 146, 1989, p. 97. [emphasis added]
Note: Basic Newtonian physics allows one to easily calculate the distance of the Moon based on lunar cycles. 650 million years ago, the distance of the Moon was still 96.9% of its current distance. It clearly has not been receding very fast.
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/moon_recession.htm
Barbarian. Distance has a much greater effect on tidal action than does continent position..Your side calculates the lunar recession was as low as .5 cm/yr as a result of continental position. The gravitational pull of the moon on the earths oceans is such that if the distance were halved, the gravitational force would be 4 times greater.
- Status