Whoops, another Icon went away - The Moon

[bob b]

Here is an excellent and understandable article discussing how unlikely it is that the Moon is as old as evolutionits assume it is.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm

[rbisback]

"Notice that the evolutionists are doing exactly what they claim it is invalid for creationists to do--they start out with an answer and try to figure out a way to get the desired answer. They have figured out what the parameters have to be to be compatible with a 4.5 billion year age. Having found those parameters, they believe these parameters must be correct because the Earth is (in their minds) 4.5 billion years old. Then they try to find a plausible explanation for why it must be so."

Interesting quote from the article.

[Stratnerd]

Major difference in the two "asnwers"

Creationists: the Earth is some 6000 years old because the Bible says so.

Scientists: the earth is an estimated 4.5 billion years old based on evidence

[rbisback]

NOT!

For all you know the earth could have been hit by a bigger meteor than the one that hit in Northern South America, and caused the earth to go molten again. You have NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The evidence is spurious dating systems that give many dates but only the ones that are of current value to evolutionismists are accepted.

So, the second "statement" is false and should read:

SOME scientists: the earth is estimated at this time to be 4.5 billion years old to fit naturalistic macroevolutionary theory.

[Mr. Ben]

How do you explain rbisback the fact that the rate of recession of the moon precisely matches what we should expect when we factor in the actual distribution of continental landmasses and size and shape of known ocean basins in the past?

Should we intentionally use a simplistic model, and ignore the primary factors in lunar recession rate? If so, why?

[bob b]

>>Should we intentionally use a simplistic model, and ignore the primary factors in lunar recession rate? If so, why?<<

Yes, we should use simplististic order-of-magnitude estimates as a "reality check" on complex sophisticated computer models.

The simplistic model says that when the Moon was closer to the Earth the greater gravitational attraction would have generated higher tides and thus greater friction that would show up as a greater recessional rate of the Moon. In addition the greater rotational rate of the Earth in the past would generate more high/low tide cycles per month generating even more tidal friction and hence a higher recessional rate for the Moon.

In a complex computer model with many variables it would be possible to "diddle" the parameters, the values of which are not really known but merely "assigned", to come up with an answer that might possibly overcome the previously mentioned known major factors, particularly if one knew the "correct" answer, i.e. 4.5 billion years.

What is funny, yet tragic, is that evolutionists would then point to the computer model as "independent" evidence that gives the same answer as other similarly dubious approaches.

These types of computer models are in a category that should be called what they are: "horoscope" type models, flexible enough to yield "after the fact" almost any prediction or answer you would like.

This is opposed to the so-called "simplistic" models which use well-known and established hard physical principles and laws and when properly used allow us to determine maximum/minimum boundaries for such situations.

BTW, does anyone here actually believe that a person would publish the results of a computer model that did not match current recessional rates or that the variables in such a model could not be selected or adjusted to accomplish such a match?

Actually, as a careful examination of the simplistic model would show, the current recessional rate is an input to any mathematical model, since without that data it would be impossible to calculate the frictional forces developed by ocean tides. In this sense it would be impossible to come up with a model that did not match the current recessional rate of the Moon. In other words, it is the known recessional rate of the Moon that permits us to get into "the right ballpark" with a number that represents the net tidal frictional force in the first place. ;)

[Mr. Ben]

The fact remains that the recession of the moon precisely matches what is expected given the distribution of land masses and ocean basins over the past.

But you're welcome to bring up any recent peer reviewed evidence which supports your position Bob.

[bob b]

Ben,
Go back and read what I added while you were posting. I explained why any model would of necessity match the current recessional rate because that number is an input to the model to calibrate it in the first place.

What one does from that point on is to try to judge the relative change in tidal frictional forces which might depend to some extent on different orientations of continental land masses in the past.

Calculating tidal frictional forces is similar in some ways to calculating the weather. Nobody could possibly ever calculate global weather patterns from scratch using a mathematical/computer model. It is necessary to input the current situation in some way in order to calibrate the model parameters. The problem of global simulation is so far beyond current capabilities that one can not possibly get a realistic simulation without reference to the current or known historical situation in some way.

[rbisback]

Ben, what if the moon was a recent capture, say 40,000 years ago, what would THAT do to your model?

[Mr. Ben]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/956126.stm

That would be inconsistent with the geological evidence rbisback.

[Mr. Ben]

Bob, the viscosity and density of water is known, as is the density and deformability of continental and basaltic rock.

I understand that you're trying to hide the fact that the independent calculation of the effect of tidal pull on the moon vs. the geographic distribution of oceans and continents matches. Unfortunately, the science behind these calculations is pretty well understood.

Better luck next time.

[bob b]

>>the viscosity and density of water is known, as is the density and deformability of continental and basaltic rock.<<

What is not known is how to sum up in a practical way all of the differences in water depth, density of rock, etc, which affect the final net result of tidal friction (not to mention the dynamic effects of vibrational modes of tidal flows in motion). If you think this can be done without reference to the present recessional rate of the Moon you are seriously deluded.

>>I understand that you're trying to hide the fact that the independent calculation of the effect of tidal pull on the moon vs. the geographic distribution of oceans and continents matches. <<

I'm not trying to hide it. I am trying to explain to you that it matches because it an input, not an output of the analysis.

>>Unfortunately, the science behind these calculations is pretty well understood.<<

Yes, but it is unfortunate for you , because I understand these things and you apparently don't. ;)

[Mr. Ben]

>>the viscosity and density of water is known, as is the density and deformability of continental and basaltic rock.<<

What is not known is how to sum up in a practical way all of the differences in water depth, density of rock, etc, which affect the final net result of tidal friction (not to mention the dynamic effects of vibrational modes of tidal flows in motion). If you think this can be done without reference to the present recessional rate of the Moon you are seriously deluded.

If any question is answered conclusively, but the answer is not to Bob's liking, then it hasn't been proven because of the "differences in water depth" or other such nonsense. We never get any specifics, just some random points thrown up as a smoke screen.

If something is proven false, but it "is" something that Bob believes in, then no amount of specific reasoned argument can persuade Bob that it is false regardless of how nonsensical the argument.

The fact STILL remains Bob that the density and resistance to deformation of continental rock, basaltic rock, and water are well known. Given this information, the recession of the moon precisely matches what we would expect.

>>> >>I understand that you're trying to hide the fact that the independent calculation of the effect of tidal pull on the moon vs. the geographic distribution of oceans and continents matches. <<

>>> I'm not trying to hide it. I am trying to explain to you that it matches because it an input, not an output of the analysis.

If you are trying to explain, you are going about it in an odd way. It is just as if you weren't trying to explain anything, and merely "claim" that it is wrong with no reasoned or evidenced explanation whatsoever.

>> >>Unfortunately, the science behind these calculations is pretty well understood.<<

>> Yes, but it is unfortunate for you , because I understand these things and you apparently don't.

Well then lead on with the science Bob. Let's see the numbers, the data, the critical mistakes that the rest of the paleogeologist community have glaringly made.

Lay it out for us with "specifics" here in black and white. No horsing around with "probably doesn't", "could possibly be more complicated", and "we probably can't know if".

We're all ears. The paleo geologists have gone to all the trouble to factor everything that we know about the physical aspects of the earth moon tidal system, and their analysis matches what we would expect.

Now it's your turn.

Let's see some specifics.

[bob b]

>>The fact STILL remains Bob that the density and resistance to deformation of continental rock, basaltic rock, and water are well known. Given this information, the recession of the moon precisely matches what we would expect.<<

Given only this information plus the mass, current distance, etc. nobody could ever possibly calculate reliably and accurately the current recessional rate of the Moon. It is totally necessary to know the current recessional rate and work backwards to calibrate all of the otherwise unknown variables in such a complex situation. I am amazed that anyone with even the least experience in simulations of this type could possibly think otherwise.

>>the critical mistakes that the rest of the paleogeologist community have glaringly made.<<

The mistake is yours not theirs. You are the one claiming that their model "predicted" the current recessional rate of the Moon. I simply pointed out that you jumped to that conclusion because their model agrees with current recessional rate, but the truth is that it agrees because they started with that as input data in developing their model.

>>The paleo geologists have gone to all the trouble to factor everything that we know about the physical aspects of the earth moon tidal system, and their analysis matches what we would expect. <<

Their analysis took into account the current recessional rate of the Moon as an input. They were also trying to match the 4.5 billion known (supposedly) age of the Moon. They suceeded in finding combinations of parameters in their model that achieved their goal. They did not "predict" the current recessional rate, they used it to calibrate some of the parameters in their model to yield that result, else their model would have no credibility at all. The same thing is done in global warming models and weather models. There is nothing inherently wrong in doing this except it might lead some inexperienced people to conclude that the model must be right because it "predicts" current conditions.

[Mr. Ben]

>> Given only this information plus the mass, current distance, etc. nobody could ever possibly calculate reliably and accurately the current recessional rate of the Moon.

And the recessional rates they extrapolated given the known historical layout of the continents and the known physical properties of the oceans and continental crust matches the known age of the earth.

That would be uncanny if it weren't true.

>> >>the critical mistakes that the rest of the paleogeologist community have glaringly made.<<

>> The mistake is yours not theirs. You are the one claiming that their model "predicted" the current recessional rate of the Moon.

I simply said that the past rates extrapolated from the known data match that of a very old earth.

>> I simply pointed out that you jumped to that conclusion because their model agrees with current recessional rate, but the truth is that it agrees because they started with that as input data in developing their model.

That is correct. That is called extrapolation.

>> >>The paleo geologists have gone to all the trouble to factor everything that we know about the physical aspects of the earth moon tidal system, and their analysis matches what we would expect. <<

>> Their analysis took into account the current recessional rate of the Moon as an input.

They can hardly extrapolate the recession rate in the past if they don't know what it is today. If it was twice what it is now, then the past must necessarily also have been dramatically faster, and the time scale would have been dramatically shorter and would not agree with the present age of the earth.

However, the rate of recession is the rate it presently is, and given the geological data, it does just so happen to uncannily match the age of the earth as measured independently by other means.

>> They were also trying to match the 4.5 billion known (supposedly) age of the Moon. They suceeded in finding combinations of parameters in their model that achieved their goal.

Yes, basically the distribution and density of ocean basins, and continental crust, and the historical distribution of the continents. It is odd that these 'tuned' parameters happen to simply be the known state of the past earth.

They could of course have tuned it to use nonsensical parameters, but the real geological arrangement of continents seemed to be the wiser choice.

Again Bob, you've made the assertions.. now back them up with SPECIFIC data. What specific assumptions did they make in their models that are invalid.

>> They did not "predict" the current recessional rate, they used it to calibrate some of the parameters in their model to yield that result, else their model would have no credibility at all.

Yes, that is your assertion, and we've all heard it before. Now where's the proof?

[bob b]

Ben,

I said:
>> They did not "predict" the current recessional rate, they used it to calibrate some of the parameters in their model to yield that result, else their model would have no credibility at all.<<

Ben said:
>>Yes, that is your assertion, and we've all heard it before. Now where's the proof?<<

But when I previously said:
>> Their analysis took into account the current recessional rate of the Moon as an input.<<

Ben replied:
>>They can hardly extrapolate the recession rate in the past if they don't know what it is today. <<

Which seemed to me to indicate that Ben agreed with me that the fact that the model agrees with today's lunar recessional rate is due to the fact that this value was an input to the model.

Therefore when I said way back at the beginning of this posting:

>> They did not "predict" the current recessional rate, they used it to calibrate some of the parameters in their model to yield that result, else their model would have no credibility at all.<<

Why did Ben reply?
>>Yes, that is your assertion, and we've all heard it before. Now where's the proof?<<

Can someone help me out here? I thought Ben was agreeing with me there for an instant, but now he doesn't seem to be.

"Now you see it and now you don't". ??????

[rbisback]

"Dating showed the deposits were laid down 3,225 million years ago, in a shallow lagoon on the edge of a continental margin."


The date that was acceptable to them.

I also note that the rocks brought back from the moon date from between 4.6 and 3 billion years old. I got this from:

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/luna.html

"Most rocks on the surface of the Moon seem to be between 4.6 and 3 billion years old."

And, oh dear, they say SEEM TO BE. seems that there would have to be a consistancy in those dates now doesn't it? Throw out the dates that are not in vogue.

[Stratnerd]

R'back,

It is only good science writing to say "appear" , "seem to be", "these data suggest". Unlike creationists, scientists acknowledge that there is potential error at all levels.

[Mr. Ben]

And, oh dear, they say SEEM TO BE. seems that there would have to be a consistancy in those dates now doesn't it? Throw out the dates that are not in vogue.

Put your money where your mouth is rbisback. Let's see a comprehensive catalog of dated material from any given timespan of your choice, from any lab of your choice, with the specific samples thrown out in that timespan at a given lab, the percentage of total submitted samples, and what reason you or any other creationist can posit for each to dispute their undatability.

It is easy for any yahoo to go on about some sort of universal conspiracy theory (this one in particular involving literally thousands of trained scientists). It is quite another for you to provide systematic, clear, and convincing evidence that what you say is not what it appears to be: hot air.

[Mr. Ben]

>> I said:
>> They did not "predict" the current recessional rate, they used it to calibrate some of the parameters in their model to yield that result, else their model would have no credibility at all.<<

Ben said:
>>Yes, that is your assertion, and we've all heard it before. Now where's the proof?<<

I understood your post to imply that their model had no credibility at all. Simply stating that it takes into account the present known recession rate of the moon is irrelevant.

Creationists assume naively that modeling the ocean basins accurately is not fundamental to calculating the past historical recession rate. In fact, they simply calculate a blind extrapolation from the present rate.

The scientific models do not make any such naive assumptions. They attempt to be as physically realistic as possible, taking into account the shape of the ocean basins which have changed over time, as well as the physical nature of the continental crust, oceanic bassalt, and the oceans themselves.

[bob b]

Ben,

If we can agree that the model does not "predict" the current recession rate, but instead uses that rate as input data to calibrate the model then we have made progress and can continue to discuss what can be determined about the past from such models.

>>I understood your post to imply that their model had no credibility at all. Simply stating that it takes into account the present known recession rate of the moon is irrelevant.<<

It is not irrelevent to my claim that the fact that their model agrees with the current recessional rate is because they used that rate to calibrate their model. You had claimed that this "agreement" was evidence of the validity of their model and I was simply pointing out why this was not true.

>>Creationists assume naively that modeling the ocean basins accurately is not fundamental to calculating the past historical recession rate. In fact, they simply calculate a blind extrapolation from the present rate.<<

The person who did the calculations in the link that I provided is well versed in physics and mathematics and is not naive. He is well aware that what he did is not strictly speaking a "model" but instead is a max/min analysis that can be used as a "reality check" on more complex models. We do this sort of thing all the time in the simulation field and it is a very valuable tool in locating errors, particularly in complex models.

His calculations are not "blind extrapolations". His calculations use well known and tested physical principles and laws. They do make assumptions which if you read his article carefully he is well aware of and spells them out in detail.

>>The scientific models do not make any such naive assumptions. They attempt to be as physically realistic as possible, taking into account the shape of the ocean basins which have changed over time, as well as the physical nature of the continental crust, oceanic bassalt, and the oceans themselves.<<

First, we do not know what the models in question are assuming because we do not have it spelled out in detail for us. You are taking this purely on faith. However, I would assume that the authors are using the same physical laws and principles as the anti-evolutionist (he does not argue from a creationist position but is simply criticizing an evolutionist position). If the authors are not using these well known physical laws and principles then their model would be worthless, so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the primary portions of their model have been built correctly.

The dispute really lies in the secondary effects introduced by changes in tidal friction across the seabed that might be influenced by the distribution of land masses or volume of water in the oceans. This is calibrated for conditions today because we know what the recessional rate of the Moon is today, and thus can work backwards to get the tidal friction which is what causes the recessional rate to be what it is that we currently measure.

The trick is in deciding how the tidal friction might change, assuming that there were different ocean floor conditions or even greater or lesser amounts of water in the past. Usually what is done is to examine extreme changes (such as all the land in one continent or located at the poles) and try to determine how much effect this would have on the end result.

The "do_while" article seemed to recognize the difficulties and instead of trying to figure out what the oceans were like in the past jumped right to a max/min analysis or worse case/best case approach in order to set limits on where the answer would have to lie between the extremes.

If the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past then this implies both higher and more frequent tides, which would seem to imply greater tidal friction and hence a higher recessional lunar rate than currently. This is not a linear effect: it operates at higher powers. According to the astronomer DeYoung it operates as a 6th power curve and this seems to be borne out by the physics of the situation. Certainly we know that gravity varies as the inverse square of the distance and this is only one of the factors in the physical situation.

Whether one can hypothesize a sufficiently "smooth" ocean bottom or an ocean with less water in the past that would reduce tidal friction sufficiently to overcome the effects of increasingly high and more frequent tides that are an inevitable consequence of a closer Moon is an interesting exercise in speculative model building.

[rbisback]

Uh, Ben, you little evolutionist you, challenge me? Easy to refute you, guy.

Take any lava that was laid down within the last 50 years, and date it, the date will be millions of years old. The response will be, "Hey, that ain't fair, you know when that was laid down so we can't fool anyone with stupid dates."

[Stratnerd]

R'back,

Why don't radiometric dates consistently point to a 6000 year old earth? If they are unreliable, why?

[rbisback]

Why did God create trees bearing fruit? Why did God create Man being a man? Why did God create fully grown animals?

The dates that they give are assumed to be millions or billions of years old due to the fact that half life of carbon 14 or Argon takes so long to be acheived, BUT, God is no dummy, and created the earth with half-lives where they were. If the earth were radiating, life would be impossible for humans. The soil had to be made with the ability to sustain the plant life.

That makes more sense than your idea that life just happened and it had the ability to assimilate nutrients quite by accident.

[CamabanIII]

The dates that they give are assumed to be millions or billions of years old due to the fact that half life of carbon 14 or Argon takes so long to be acheived, BUT, God is no dummy, and created the earth with half-lives where they were. If the earth were radiating, life would be impossible for humans. The soil had to be made with the ability to sustain the plant life.

Out of curiosity.... Why would he have put them there at all?

[bob b]

If you guys wish to go off on a tangent from the original topic of recession of the Moon, I would ask you to please start a new thread for this new topic.

Your friendly moderator.

[rbisback]

he asked, I supplied the answer.

Of course the moon is where it is at! :)