It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Moon PROVES that Earth CAN'T be Billion (or millions) of Years Old!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Evolutionists tell us our planet and the universe are more than 4.5 billion years old ... but the Bible tells us that Creation took place only thousands of years ago. Which is true? 1



The first photograph ever taken by astronauts of an "Earthrise", from Apollo 8

At the rate the moon is receding, it would have been so close to Earth only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago that tidal friction would have melted Earth's surface rocks. Mathematical fiddlings help a little, but not enough. By mathematically increasing the reate of Earth's spin over supposed "billions" of years and figuring in a factor for assumed different tidal reats, one can inch the Earth moon relationship back to about 4 billion years. 1

Evolutionary scientists believe the problem can be solved to keep their 4.5 billion years of evolutionary history intact. But they admit that the assumptions being tried need investigation since the matter is far from solved. In other words, evolutionist admit they have a problem making the Earth moon realationship fit into their long age history. 1

The mathematical models rule out the theory that the moon was formed billions of years ago from the same dust cloud that supposedly formed the Earth. Also ruled out is the theory that the moon was captured by the Earth's gravity. Only one explanation seems to satisfy the data---- That the Moon was formed relatively recently, orbiting the Earht from the time of its creation. 1


Earth and Moon from Mars, imaged by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. From space, the Earth can be seen to go through phases similar to the phases of the Moon.

Because of their tidal interaction, the Moon recedes from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 mm a year. Over millions of years, these tiny modifications—and the lengthening of Earth's day by about 23 days a year—add up to significant changes. During the Devonian period, for example, (approximately 410 million years ago) there were 400 days in a year, with each day lasting 21.8 hours. 2

The most widely accepted theory of the Moon's origin, the giant impact theory, states that it formed from the collision of a Mars-size protoplanet called Theia with the early Earth. This hypothesis explains (among other things) the Moon's relative lack of iron and volatile elements, and the fact that its composition is nearly identical to that of the Earth's crust. 2



Sources:
1= www.creationmoments.com...
2= en.wikipedia.org...
Note: Excellent presentation of the headline theory here (pdf file):
Moon Formation 4.5 Billion Years Ago
www.ccsf.edu...

Now, it seems like the argument is simple enough. Lets look into it. What are your thoughts and/or proof other wise. One has to admit that the argument made that the Earth isn't Billions of years old (or even millions of years old) is pretty convincing---with the science used.

The topic of the moon moving away from Earth has been discussed previously on ATS but not to the extent of this piece. Basically, by using the info and evidence that NASA and others have made/discovered, seems to support that unless the moon started moving away "recently", it was either (1) Not moving away (stationary)... thus the whole earth would have been dramatically different than we know it. or (2) moving closer to the earth and some event caused it to go the other way.

I know someone will come along and complain about the source of the question-being religious and whatnot but fact of the matter is that the whole idea seems to be supported by science. And, if you read the pdf file I attached at the Source area, I guess science can support most of the statements made there. So who is right?


On a side note... for you Moon Nuts (like me). Don't forget about the movie Appolo 18, coming out on September 2, 2011. This is what I think happened....
)


edit on 8/17/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
First off I would like to ask all people who take part in this thread not to get sidetracked and start asking "well, what about this other thing..." because then this thread will devolve into just another bunfight going nowhere.

I ask that this thread be dedicated to NOTHING ELSE except the question of the rate at which the moon is receeding from earth.


Originally posted by anon72
At the rate the moon is receding, it would have been so close to Earth only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago that tidal friction would have melted Earth's surface rocks.


So, at the current rate.
Always a suspect thing.
From the creationist argument, I'd like you to cite *any scientific source at all* that says the moon has been receeding at this current rate throughout history.
Because it hasnt.
Argument over.

edit on 17-8-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
On wikipedia further down, the article states that the most widely believed theory is the giant impact theory. On the other article you provided, the only rebuttal offered against was that the math doesnt add up. The moon could have even been created by aliens for all we know.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
So your saying (pmsl i love saying that) that radiometric dating is wrong???



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Robert Morning Sky's Terra Papers.

2nd.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
More data.
A search finds...

1. Creationists are lying when they give a rate at which the moon is receeding from the earth.
The value is much smaller than they would like, at 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

2. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less.

3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. This is important because of the conservation of angular momentum required for the earth moon system.

4. Creationists lose yet again, and falsification of the real story is the only thing they have to back up their assertions.

talk.origins

edit on 17-8-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Is there any recorded history or something that show there was once a time with NO moon?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
We will never know the true history of humans or Earth. Earth could be thousands years old or it could be millions or billions of years old. Who knows. At this point I could care less because chances are we are wrong about anything we find.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
nvermind
edit on 17-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Creationists always fail....thats what happens when you believe a sky fairy brought everything into existence



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacofunk64
We will never know the true history of humans or Earth. Earth could be thousands years old or it could be millions or billions of years old. Who knows. At this point I could care less because chances are we are wrong about anything we find.


Radiometric dating is the most accurate dating technique we have....and it does a fine job at disproving nonsense like this



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I like your demands. Maybe do your own thread? Just a suggestion.

Now, Okay, I can't site anything that says the moon is moving away at a certain rate constantly overtime.

Just as you can't prove it hasn't. Or it has slowed down?

SO, currently, it is moving away from earth. So, are you saying the Earth was at a Stand-Still in the past... or was moving closer to the Earth at one point? When did the moon just decide to start moving away? What caused it too?


edit on 8/17/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Now, Okay, I can't site anything that says the moon is moving away at a certain rate constantly overtime.

Just as you can't prove it hasn't.



Actually I did.
Its a principle called "conservation of angular momentum". This for the earth-moon system involves everything that rotates and turns, such as the earth-moon distance and the length of the day, and all that water sloshing about in the form of tides..
Thats why I mentioned it, the evidence for it, and the reference for my claim.

But as an extra aside, I checked what the website answersingenesis.com had to say.
They, like yourself, give a limit of 1.4 billion years and cite Don DeYoung (1992), who uses a figure for tidal dissipation in his calculations which was already 15 years out of date when he wrote his article.

Its the old saying "garbage in / garbage out". If you use dumb numbers in your calculations, you get dumb results.
reference



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The main problem you're gonna face with science, is the source(as you stated) and the agenda of humans.

The earth was once flat and was the center of the universe after all.

So your theory could be correct, but it's doubtful we'll ever truly know in our lifetime. Once religion gets out of the way of science (as it is starting to) than science fact, will be more factual if you know what I mean.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 



Now, Okay, I can't site anything that says the moon is moving away at a certain rate constantly overtime.


According to this Source.

The Moon is receding from the Earth at
about 4 centimetres a year, as measured1
by laser reflectors left there by astronauts.


Which 1 refers to Dickey, J. O. et al. Science 265, 482–490 (1994). if i read it correctly.


And here is another Source which says :

The evolution of the Earth[Moon system is far from being
a new subject. Evidence of the loss of the Earth's angular momentum
has long been observed through paleogeological clocks
(for a review, see Williams, 1989), while the present deceleration
of the lunar mean motion can be directly measured by
Lunar Laser Ranging (Dickey et al., 1994) with great precision.



Hope that helps at your research.

Peace



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Can't wait for Apollo 18!!!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Hope that helps at your research.


It wont help him.
What he needed was not the current rate that the moon is receeding, but any evidence at all that this current rate has been the exact same rate for the last several billion years.
Without that, his entire argument falls apart.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Sir, I am not gonna lie. What a fascinating article/source. I have read it 3 times so far. A bit out of my league but it does seem to make sense. I'm being serious.

But, what I gather (and admit I am probably wrong), that the moon could actually "reverse" it departing and move closer over time. Am I correct in that? Or stopped at a certain point and not move further away?

For the record, I am by no means a creationist etc. I just thought the arguement presented was a valid one.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

Evolutionists tell us our planet and the universe are more than 4.5 billion years old ... but the Bible tells us that Creation took place only thousands of years ago. Which is true?



The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.



It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

Allan Kardec,
edit on 17-8-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
But, what I gather (and admit I am probably wrong), that the moon could actually "reverse" it departing and move closer over time. Am I correct in that? Or stopped at a certain point and not move further away?



It seems so, yes.
Goes back to the question that was never asked - WHY is the moon receeding from earth at all?
Why would it wish to do this? Why not just stay at the same place?

Once the answer to that is found, then yes, all of the above scenarios you describe are possible under the right circumstances.




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join