Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[HMS_Beagle]

All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation using the present recession rate, here's why: Since the present rate is slower then using the present rate sets an upper age limit.

The present rate of lunar recession is faster, not slower. Jorge just isn't very bright, screws it up again.

Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbitlittle more than half the present rate of lunar recession

Amazing to watch but not unexpected.

[rogue06]

First, your "P.S." ending : be sure to apply that standard to yourself, you forked-tongue Dodo!

As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

Apparently you somehow overlooked the fact that the source roy was quoting was from ICR -- the very first group you listed that "do not make this error."

[klaus54]

I beg your pardon, I certainly did reply:

"I did what common sense dictates -- I simply walked around the disgusting pile."

That you did not like the reply is a different subject for discussion.

Jorge

For the record: No answer

K54

[JonF]

Well, he did reply.. but he also did not answer. Standard Jorge.

[klaus54]

Well, he did reply.. but he also did not answer. Standard Jorge.

I did write "No answer."

It's been a few days, but I believe my question was how the Moon got into tidal lock in 6,000 years. I thought it apropos the discussion of the Moon's recession rate.

Apparently the answers involves "a steaming pile of dog doo."

K54

[Jorge]

Apparently you somehow overlooked the fact that the source roy was quoting was from ICR -- the very first group you listed that "do not make this error."

I had a hard time deciding on whom to respond to - you, O-Mudd or Beagle Boy since you all flunked. I finally decided to respond to your post which will also answer the other two.

Beginning with yours, all I can say is that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ!
My earlier post more-than-adequately addresses and answers what you bring up here. Geesh !!!

O-Mudd and Beagle Boy -- allies as usual -- make the same sophomoric blunder (no surprises here).




" ... [one]

SOME REFERENCES IN THE ABOVE:http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age


Crawl into a corner, assume the fetal position, suck on your thumb and remain silent.
Unless you can genuinely refute any of this, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Funniest of all is Beagle Boy who keeps parroting the same stupid error time and again.
Good LORD, thank you so much that I am NOT Beagle Boy. Bwahahahaha !!!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Beginning with yours, all I can say is that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ!

(snip the rest of the usual YEC blithering stupidity)

Jorge

Good old Jorge. C&Ping his same PRATT claims from a YEC website while ignoring all the empirical evidence that he got his lunar recession rate claim exactly backwards.

Nobody faceplants like Jorge. Nobody.

[klaus54]

...

From the ... equation, the time for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to the present distance is 1.3 billion years. Without introducing tidal parameters

...
Jorge

But we DO have tidal parameters due to Plate Tectonics.

Oh, and how do you explains the Moon's tidal lock?

K54

[Roy]

So those creationist sites that are still promoting calculations that use a linear extrapolation over a far greater period than can be justified:

____"The present speed of recession of the moon is known.
____If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed
____evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away
____from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth."

without noting that the relationship is actually non-linear are, to borrow your phrase, so utterly dishonest that it would make Bernie Madoff blush in shame. Yet you support them anyway.

As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

That quote is from the ICR website. You even quoted the link. They did make that error. Look it up yourself.

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

Here's another bit of unintended humor from Jorge's CMI "science" site. The YECs there also make this claim about the moon's orbital inclination

In other words, if the moon had originated naturalistically, the inclination should be zero and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

The quote is a blatantly dishonest quote-mine of the actual paper which explained the inclination history. Here's the paper

Origin of the Moon's orbital inclination from resonant disk interactions

Jorge gets his "science" from sites like this that shamelessly lie about virtually every aspect of the science. Yet Jorge swallows every lie because it agrees with his preconceived TRUTH.

[HMS_Beagle]

One more juicy nugget. Here's a great presentation from the U. of Colorado with a history of lunar orbit parameters. There's a nice and fairly thorough explanation with good graphics on how changes in lunar recession rate are driven by tidal friction and how the rate has varied over the last 4 billion years to the current historically high value.

The Lunar Orbit Throughout Time and Space

[rogue06]

I had a hard time deciding on whom to respond to - you, O-Mudd or Beagle Boy since you all flunked. I finally decided to respond to your post which will also answer the other two.

Beginning with yours, all I can say is that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ!
My earlier post more-than-adequately addresses and answers what you bring up here. Geesh !!!

O-Mudd and Beagle Boy -- allies as usual -- make the same sophomoric blunder (no surprises here).




" ... [one]

SOME REFERENCES IN THE ABOVE:http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age


Crawl into a corner, assume the fetal position, suck on your thumb and remain silent.
Unless you can genuinely refute any of this, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Funniest of all is Beagle Boy who keeps parroting the same stupid error time and again.
Good LORD, thank you so much that I am NOT Beagle Boy. Bwahahahaha !!!

Jorge

From the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website:

Source: Young Age for the Moon and Earth
Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

• That is the quote that Roy provided.

• That claims that the rate is linear.

• That quote comes from an article on the ICR website.

• ICR is the very first group you listed that "do not make this error."

So you are clearly in error here when you claimed that the YEC groups...

that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

...because ICR is in fact promoting the view you said that they "do not."

So "you forked-tongue Dodo" it is apparent that YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO READ! before accusing others.

Are you going to concede this or will your "ego, pride and hatred ... absolutely never allow you to admit this"?



As an aside, I brought up the following earlier in the thread:

Then why do YECs who write articles for various organizations prominently display any credentials that they may or may not have even when the article they are writing on is way outside their area of expertise?

This article is an example in that the author, Thomas Barnes, only holds an honorary Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc. or Sc.D.) degree given to him by Hardin-Simmons University (HSU) in Abilene, Texas. IOW this is an instance of the sort of credential mongering that YECs so often engage in.

[HMS_Beagle]

From the ... equation, the time for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to the present distance is 1.3 billion years. Without introducing tidal parameters

But we DO have tidal parameters due to Plate Tectonics.

Oh, and how do you explains the Moon's tidal lock?

K54

Kinda like saying "Besides that small interruption Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[rogue06]

The ICR article that claims that the lunar recession rate is linear also disseminates another old YEC PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times)^[1], namely that the depth of the dust on the moon demonstrates it isn't old

Source: Young Age for the Moon and Earth

The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.⁴ Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The claim that NASA was worried that the astronauts would sink in moon dust is complete poppycock.

This nonsense was primarily pushed by Henry Morris of ICR in his screed Scientific Creationism" based upon him cherry picking an obsolete test with known problems and declaring that it the "best" measurement available (a study conducted by Hans Pettersson in the '50s and published in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American).

The problems with the test this claim is based upon are legion, starting with the fact that a device that was intended for measuring smog levels was used to measure dust accumulation. No surprise you get faulty readings when the wrong equipment is used.

Beyond that the amount of nickel that was collected was measured and the calculations were based upon that. The assumption was that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust which is incorrect. This error led to the calculations being greatly over-estimated.

Also Pettersson was clear that the measurements he got were almost certainly incorrect and estimated that the figure was likely closer to a third of what his tests showed and he even cautioned that the true figure could be much lower still. I guess he recognized that taking his measurements from atop volcanoesMoon Dust and the Age of the Solar System that concluded

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

definitely1. Sometimes also known as "Previously Refuted A Thousand Times"

[Roy]

Kinda like saying "Besides that small interruption Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

I always preferred

_____Salome, dear, not in the fridge.

Roy