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: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Suppose the Moon was hit by multiple or a single large asteroid at some point that altered its orbital position with a push. Needd it be pointed out the possible crater that caused such an change?

If we can talk about an earthquake altering the Earth, let us extent dynamic possibilities to the motions of the Moon beyond a gradual change?




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If I'm not mistaken, the moon hasn't always been moving away from the Earth. From what I understand, the current model states that before the Moon became "tidally locked" (same side always facing the Earth's surface), the Moon would have been approaching Earth or maintaining a constant distance. As the Earth/Moon system's angular momentum shifted away from the Moon's rate of rotation, the Moon began its current pattern of inching away from us.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
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.



The "day-age" argument is an old one, and a flawed one.
If you look into it, no, they dont fit at all, which is why most creationists avoid this argument...

However, a close examination of the things created on these days illustrates that these events are incompatible with the sequences in either Big Bang Cosmology or the Theory of Evolution.


creationwiki

And BTW, also offtopic for this thread.

Edit - even the Institute for Creation Research wont have anything to do with this argument...
ICR

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



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 



I thought about that... after seeing Moon Crater 308-Apollo 11 shot:


Variables... they change everything. Maybe some event like that pushed it to the point it was able to move away and if so, one can assume another major hit could send the moon in another way. maybe?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
omg its so clear to me now, science has got it all wrong. from now on im putting my faith into that book, whats it called, its the really old one thats been changed so many times through history, oh yeah the bible.

I BELIEVE.........not.

who are you trying to convince? us, or yourself ?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
ok i shud probably add something constructive.
i remember reading somewhere (new scientist i think) that earth had 2 moons which collided gradully and melded into one, explaining why one side has more craters and a thicker crust.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


Not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Just discussing an idea put forth... seems to me you have a problem with the people that brought the thing up.

The two moons story... Not sure about that but, of course, it is possible.

I will have to read up on that one more though.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


How do we know that the moon's falling rate is not increasing? perhaps it was a lot less in the past.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by anon72
 


How do we know that the moon's falling rate is not increasing? perhaps it was a lot less in the past.

This is exactly what I was going to say. We don't know enough about the Earth-Moon system to know for sure at what speed it was moving away from us in the past.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I agree totally with you and the information that you have posted.

I must say though you have set your self up to be bashed by those who do not agree with a creationist view.

I myself do not use the term proved unless you can personally do the tests your self and so can others.
I prefer the term "evidence shows"

I also like to not attack others intelligence by using ""you"" or "" I ''' in my statements. They seems to be a better word and it gives those who are reading the hole in the fence to leave by when they realize that the evidence does show that they are wrong.

One must realize that evolution is a philosophy and even borders religion in the areas of faith required to believe untestable, unrepeatable hypothesis. With this in mind when one shows that their life long belief is strewn with lies and un-scientific fairy tales they become defense of their religion as they know in their heart that God is the alternative and that their un-Godly life style is wrong.

Job 12:
[7] But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
[8] Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
[9] Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by anon72
 


How do we know that the moon's falling rate is not increasing? perhaps it was a lot less in the past.

This is exactly what I was going to say. We don't know enough about the Earth-Moon system to know for sure at what speed it was moving away from us in the past.



I would agree with that statement.

But do they also agree that we do not know enough about the decay rates of any atoms on this planet to say that any dating method used is at all accurate.

Like does comets passing close to earth cause a quick decay or does it slow down the decay rate.
Do they ever take into account that leaching is a probable factor to decay rates?
Do they know if volcanoes have any factors on decay rates?,,Solar flares,, drought, wet years, colder years, hotter years, Here is a big one the magnetic field of the earth, which by the way we know more about the decay rate of it which its half life is 1500 years and we have been studying is for around 150 years. That is about 10%.
We know less than .01% of the decay life of uranium.
edit on 17-8-2011 by ACTS 2:38 because: s



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Decay rates and half life calculations are quite constant, the only way you can change an element is with a nuclear reaction, and comets and asteroids don't do that, it takes a star to do that in nature.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



Nope... apparently incorrecteeeeeeee
Mother Nature's nuclear reactor described by WUSTL researchers


Now, University researchers have analyzed the isotopic structure of noble gases produced in fission in a sample from the only known natural nuclear chain reaction site in the world in Gabon, West Africa, and have found how she does the trick. Analyzing a fragment of Gabon-site rock that's less than one-eighth of an inch, Alexander Meshik, Ph.D., senior research scientist in the Department of Physics in Arts & Sciences, has calculated that the precise isotopic structure of xenon in the sample reveals an operation that worked like a geyser. The reactor, active 2 billion years ago, worked on a 30-minute reaction cycle, accompanied by a 2.5-



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


Not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Just discussing an idea put forth... seems to me you have a problem with the people that brought the thing up.

The two moons story... Not sure about that but, of course, it is possible.

I will have to read up on that one more though.


soz, had a couple beers when i wrote it lol

the two moons thing i think was in 'new scientist' or an astronomy magazine. it said that one theory was that most of the craters on the moon were made in the early stages of the solar system and earth had 2 main moons on a similar orbit, they collided gradually so instead of destroying each other the smaller one kind of just crumbled into the surface. the article said that this would explain why there are more craters on one side of the moon and why one side has a thiner crust/ less heat coming from it. apparntly they are planning compare the rocks from both sides to see if there is any differances.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


I've read something about that on UniverseToday I believe. Basically it goes that, when Theia/Gaia hit the Earth, it caused a ton of material to enter orbit from both (as per the current Moon formation theory). It could have formed into two moons instead of just one (and they have computer models that can agree with this) One would be our current Moon, essentially, and the much smaller other moon slowly collided with it - of course 'slowly' is speaking in relative terms. This is believed to be the reason why one part of the Moon has such a higher elevation than the rest.


reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Of course you're correct in that we can only view what elements, etc, are shown to do currently. The same goes for everything else. That's the problem with the book you're trying to use literally to explain the creation of the Earth. It was written (and rewritten countless times) by Men who were trying to explain how things got to be the way they were at that time; with no knowledge of how they were before and no concept of the scientific method to try and find out. They were happy enough to just say that "God did it" as if he plopped everything into being just as they currently saw it.

The difference here is that our tools at investigating have gotten more than a slight bit better in sophistication. We can test for variables that may or may not change to find if they can be used as a constant for measurement. This is why dating methods can be fairly well trusted within a certain range.

I think the problem is that it's past time for that book to be rewritten (again) to include things that we know are true today. Why some are so bent against the idea that God might have created an evolving system is a mystery I cannot solve. I would think even an omnipotent being would get bored of a static universe. We are, afterall, created in His image...and we evolve our own creations on an ever-increasing basis, right?

--
Back to the OP - I really see no reason why Creationists are so bent on twisting evidence to their liking in this manner. All they normally accomplish is making themselves look like fools.
edit on 18-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well, its been a few days now since this thread was started, after debunking the original assertion...

At the rate the moon is receding, it would have been so close to Earth only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago

...it is perhaps instructive to the casual reader that NOBODY wishes to stand by it.
Not a single person has come forward with any kind of evidence to stand by this claim that the moon is receeding at the stated rate.

But also note that this same bogus argument has been used since 1992, and despite no credibility and nobody to stand behind it, is still to this day in use by creationists... and will be long into the future.
Its the way creationism works.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
Well, its been a few days now since this thread was started, after debunking the original assertion...

At the rate the moon is receding, it would have been so close to Earth only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago

...it is perhaps instructive to the casual reader that NOBODY wishes to stand by it.
Not a single person has come forward with any kind of evidence to stand by this claim that the moon is receeding at the stated rate.

But also note that this same bogus argument has been used since 1992, and despite no credibility and nobody to stand behind it, is still to this day in use by creationists... and will be long into the future.
Its the way creationism works.


GIGGITY GIGGITY GOO



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Well, I sure learned a lot. And, that is why I put things up that seem interesting. To learn.

That link you provided for an explanation was pretty good.

That's what it is all about. Learning.

Now, what I am interested in is the point I brought up-after reading your linked info...

That the Moon could "reverse". Now, that would make life on earth interesting in the future.

Also, the whole concept of two moons that was brought up. The more I thought about it... there could have been 10 moons for all we know of what has occurred over the billion of years.

Thank you and for everyone that participated.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LexiconV
 


How was I wrong, I said it takes a nuclear reaction to change an element. Of course an unstable element has already undergone a nuclear reaction.


Naturally occurring xenon consists of nine stable isotopes. There are also over 40 unstable isotopes that undergo radioactive decay. The isotope ratios of xenon are an important tool for studying the early history of the Solar System. Radioactive Xenon-135 is produced as a result of nuclear fission and acts as a neutron absorber in nuclear reactors.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I suggest you research how planets are formed in the first place before talking about the moon. It takes a little longer than 6000 years.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join