Do YEC acknowledge tectonic plate movement?

[juvenissun]

I do want to discuss it. I'm asking you what the two have to do with each other. You seem to think that by admitting that we accept that one parameter has a varying rate of change that somehow we have denied "one of the basic principle" (sic) of evolution.

I'm asking you to justify that remark, and the first step is to explain what in the world orbital mechanics has to do with biological evolution.

If you don't want to think about it, or just be evasive, maybe you should quit.

No. That is a side point (or a deeper point).

We are talking about the moon orbit and the age model of YEC. What is wrong with that model?

 

[Cabal]

No. That is a side point (or a deeper point).

We are talking about the moon orbit and the age model of YEC. What is wrong with that model?

The argument as usually put forward by YECs is that they take a particular value of the recession rate (it might be a contemporary value, I'm not sure) and if they extrapolate backwards using that rate then it has the moon so close that the tidal force would either drown us all, or somesuch.

Either way, these kinds of arguments usually fail because they hold to a constant rate of lunar recession. The problem being, it's not constant.

 

[juvenissun]

The argument as usually put forward by YECs is that they take a particular value of the recession rate (it might be a contemporary value, I'm not sure) and if they extrapolate backwards using that rate then it has the moon so close that the tidal force would either drown us all, or somesuch.

Either way, these kinds of arguments usually fail because they hold to a constant rate of lunar recession. The problem being, it's not constant.

This system should not be too hard to think about. What factors could change the rate of orbit expansion? This is the real question I am asking.

What I heard are: Martian pull, slow down of earth rotation. What else?

Why should these factors not be constant? How dramatically could they change?

I think this could be one of the best argument given by YEC. It still can be answered. But the answer will trigger even bigger problems that will involve the validity of evolution.

 

[Cabal]

This system should not be too hard to think about. What factors could change the rate of orbit expansion? This is the real question I am asking.

What I heard are: Martian pull, slow down of earth rotation. What else?

Think those are the main ones.

Why should these factors not be constant?

Why should they be constant? It matters little either way, the evidence shows it is not constant.

How dramatically could they change?

I've seen figures mentioning a doubling of the rate over several million years.

I think this could be one of the best argument given by YEC. It still can be answered. But the answer will trigger even bigger problems that will involve the validity of evolution.

Yeah, no offence juve, but you say this about pretty much every point a YEC makes, and you never deliver, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Zeena]

Simple yes or no. Tectonic shifts move, on average, 2-12 cm per year CVO Website - Plate Tectonics and Sea-Floor Spreading

If we took the high number 12 and multiplied it by...say 6000 years we'd get about .44 miles of movement ((12*6000)*.393700787/12/5250). YEC might say:

12 cm is the current high, there's no telling that a massive event(s) (like the flood) couldn't have dramatically changed plate tectonics.

Yet, we find no evidence in the Bible for massive volcanic eruptions that would have occurred as a result.

Any YEC's have any insight?

You answered your own question, or so it seems;

Gen 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

I believe these fountains to be geysers;

Both volcanoes and geysers depend on a strong heat source in the underground, but they have completely different mecanisms. A geyser is a phenomenon on the surface, where ground water beneath the shallow surface is heated up until it explodes into boiling water and steam and then refills its plumbing system with fresh water, so that a new cycle can start. Geysers don't need to be at a volcano, but almost always occur in volcanic regions close to a volcano. A volcano does not need to have geysers around.

Source

Volcanoes are generally found where tectonic plates are diverging or converging.

Source

 

[juvenissun]

Think those are the main ones.



Why should they be constant? It matters little either way, the evidence shows it is not constant.



I've seen figures mentioning a doubling of the rate over several million years.



Yeah, no offence juve, but you say this about pretty much every point a YEC makes, and you never deliver, so I'm not holding my breath.

OK, either double it or half it, the result should still stay in the range of a YE. It will not get into billion year range.

Where do you think the problem could be?

 

[Assyrian]

OK, either double it or half it, the result should still stay in the range of a YE. It will not get into billion year range.

Where do you think the problem could be?

As far as I understand the moons orbital velocity and as a result the distance of the moons orbit are increasing because of tides. The moon pulls the ocean towards it in a tide, but the earth is rotating forward faster than the moon is orbiting, so the earth's rotation pulls the tide ahead of the moon and the gravitational pull of the tide, ahead of the moons orbit increases its velocity ever so slightly. And slows down the earth's rotation increasing the length of our day. But you also have to look at how good the earth is at dragging the tide ahead of the moon. Two great continental masses running north south and blocking the free movement of the tides is about as effective as it gets. Take all the land mass and form one big compact continent, better still move that continent to the poles, and the ocean tide is much freer to line up with the moon, rather than being dragged ahead of it.

Secondly, the further out the moon is, the longer its orbit takes and the greater difference between the earth's daily rotation and the moon. I don't know how far out the moon formed, but if you wind back to when the moon was in geosynchronous orbit the effect of the earth's tide would be zero, in fact the tide would be a stationary bulge. Of course there were other effects which caused the moons orbit to increase, such as tides within the moon's molten core while it was still rotating.

 

[rcorlew]

This system should not be too hard to think about. What factors could change the rate of orbit expansion? This is the real question I am asking.

What I heard are: Martian pull, slow down of earth rotation. What else?

Why should these factors not be constant? How dramatically could they change?

I think this could be one of the best argument given by YEC. It still can be answered. But the answer will trigger even bigger problems that will involve the validity of evolution.

That is one of the easiest questions I have seen in quite a while!!

The answer.....

The lessening effects of the Earth's gravitational pull lowering the escape velocity for the moon to totally escape earth's orbit. The closer the moon was to the earth the greater the gravitational pull on the moon and thus the closer the rotational velocity of the moon was to the escape velocity allowing only microns of drift. However, as these microns piled up after a long period they represented enough of a lessening effect to increase the rate of ascension of the moon. The rate continues to increase as the escape velocity decreases, the longer this goes on the faster the moon will retreat from earth until one day it will finally break free from earth all together which will be a real bad day on earth.

Also, the rotation of the earth is not constant, varying factors such as high winds pushing against the tops of tall mountains, position of the earth in relation to other space bodies and other factors cause the earth's rotation to vary slightly every day.

 

[juvenissun]

All things considered, could we assume an original distance between the earth and the moon, then give a range of rate on which the moon was flying away from the earth, and calculate a proper range of time period to explain the current separation between the earth and the moon?

If we get such a time period, say: 50 m.y., then what does this age mean? Could it approximate the age of the earth?

I am sure that no matter how would we model, the time period will not go up to one billion years.

 

[Papias]

Come. On.

I am again amazed at the fact that people will talk about stuff without even doing the most basic checking of facts and numbers. (I'm not referring to rcorlew).

First, a very basic calculation shows that there is no issue. The moon is around 265,000 miles away, which gives around 400,000 km, or 400 Mm. Divide that by 3.8 cm/yr, and you get over 10 billion years. Duh.

On a logical note, of course the real situation will be more complex, and of course real scientists will have looked at this, including looking at evidence. Juvi once again shows that he is clearly not a professional scientist. You can see a more detailed work up here The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

From that, it is clear that both:

1. The earth-moon system is consistent with billions of years of history.
and
2. Aspect of this more detailed examination have been confirmed with fossils and other evidence, and more detailed math has been done than I can do.

You know, the sad thing is that this sequence of events:

1. where a creationist raises questions solved years ago, then
2. states that they are still a problem without bothering to do 4 minutes worth of checking, or doing simple math that a 5th grader could do, then 3. is shown the actual work by real scientists that solves the whole "issue", and has been available for years,

is repeated so often. We could have predicted it would happen that way, and that sorry pattern will be repeated again on some other sorry creationist canard. In fact, we can add step 4, which is "the creationist objects, raising unrelated issues to distract from what just happened, and the thread is derailed for post after post."

And we wonder why the Chinese own us.

(goes away to cry.......)

P.S.

rcorlew wrote:

moon will retreat from earth until one day it will finally break free from earth all together which will be a real bad day on earth.

*sigh* No, it won't be a bad day for the earth. The moon will slowly recede, as it's been doing for billions of years, and when it get's close to being free, it will be orbiting so far away that it will have practically no effect on the earth. It'll only barely be visible at night by then. When it is lost it won't be a bad day on earth because of it, but the loss of the moon won't even be noticeable.

 

[Assyrian]

Or it will increase it orbit taking energy from the the earth's rotation, slowing down the earth day, until the moon orbit and the earth rotation synchronise, the way the moon's rotation has synchronised with it orbit.

 

[shernren]

*sigh* No, it won't be a bad day for the earth. The moon will slowly recede, as it's been doing for billions of years, and when it get's close to being free, it will be orbiting so far away that it will have practically no effect on the earth. It'll only barely be visible at night by then. When it is lost it won't be a bad day on earth because of it, but the loss of the moon won't even be noticeable.

But then the werewolves will never howl again!

 

[juvenissun]

Let's use the simple calculation given by DeYoung 1992 to evaluate. Of course it is wrong to assume earth and moon touch each other at the beginning. I don't know what would be a proper value of the original distance. But I assume 1/3 of the current distance is a possibility (not too hard to dig out some references on this). So, if considered a uniform rate of recession, then the "age" would be about 800 m.y. If we considered the initial recession rate was higher, then time would be even shorter.

To assume a constant rate of recession is a conservative way of estimation. Any variation on recession rate is more likely to shorten the time needed.

 

[Assyrian]

If the moon and the earth synchronise, only one half of the earth will ever see the moon. That's where the werewolves will live.

 

[juvenissun]

Or it will increase it orbit taking energy from the the earth's rotation, slowing down the earth day, until the moon orbit and the earth rotation synchronise, the way the moon's rotation has synchronised with it orbit.

Any idea on when will that be?

How would you estimate it? Would you tend to use a sort of constant recession rate based on what is happening today? That would give you a minimum amount of time.

Or you would not be able to estimate anything due to the possibility of wild change on recession rate as it was suggested by evolutionist? Only say "not a constant" is not good enough. Nobody really think it is a constant. As long as a rate of change is assumed, an estimation can be calculated. It should be a simple homework for a geophysicist.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's use the simple calculation given by DeYoung 1992 to evaluate. Of course it is wrong to assume earth and moon touch each other at the beginning. I don't know what would be a proper value of the original distance. But I assume 1/3 of the current distance is a possibility (not too hard to dig out some references on this). So, if considered a uniform rate of recession, then the "age" would be about 800 m.y. If we considered the initial recession rate was higher, then time would be even shorter.

To assume a constant rate of recession is a conservative way of estimation. Any variation on recession rate is more likely to shorten the time needed.

Great the way you keep ignoring mechanisms to cause the recession and simply assume it would be constant or faster. If you don't have any idea what is making the moon recede then you have no basis for saying how it behaved in the past.

 

[juvenissun]

And we wonder why the Chinese own us.

(goes away to cry.......)

Because Obama is a student flunked in their university.

 

[Assyrian]

Any idea on when will that be?

Not sure how good the site is, but I came across it here

The Origin of the Moon

In a few billion years, the net effects of these things is this: The Moon will have receded to roughly 1.6 times as far away as it is now, and it will revolve around the Earth in about 55 days (so a month will be 55 of our present days). But the Earth will have slowed down in its rotation such that it will rotate once every 55 of our current days. So, the Moon will look much smaller than it does now, and it will stay fixed in one specific spot in the sky. Half of the people on Earth would never see the Moon, and the other half would permanently be able to see it! At that time, a month and a day will have the same length! The Earth will only rotate about 7 times in every year!
At that time, the retarding effect of the tidal bulge drag would have vanished completely, so the day would stop getting longer, and the Moon would stop receding, and they might stay forever 'locked' in a synchronous 'dance' with the Earth displaying one face to the Moon the way the Moon already does to the Earth. (That happened much quicker for the Moon because the Earth's mass (and therefore gravitational effects) is about 81 times as great as the Moon's. Whatever rotation the Moon started out with, those strong tidal effects caused the Moon to become 'locked' like that probably more than two billion years ago. The Earth has actually caused a permanent tide or distortion in the shape of the Moon, by many hundreds of feet!
Some theoreticians extend the future picture out farther yet. They claim that after a period of being synchronized like that, the Moon will start re-approaching the Earth in the VERY distant future, due to considerations regarding conservation of angular momentum. Such speculation seems only barely supportable, while all the circumstances above are mathematically sound and very likely to be true. Considering that all of the satellites in the solar system seem to be 'locked' like that (permanently facing their parent planet), it seems to be a stable final condition, and further orbital evolution seems improbable.
​

How would you estimate it? Would you tend to use a sort of constant recession rate based on what is happening today? That would give you a minimum amount of time.

Or you would not be able to estimate anything due to the possibility of wild change on recession rate as it was suggested by evolutionist? Only say "not a constant" is not good enough. Nobody really think it is a constant. As long as a rate of change is assumed, an estimation can be calculated. It should be a simple homework for a geophysicist.

Like I said you need to work out what is causing it before you can make any sort of estimate. You need to compare current tidal drag with what it would be with different continental layouts. perhaps you could then average them out over hundreds of millions of years. Then you have to look at the relative motion of the earth and moon over its history, the closer the moon the stronger the pull on tides, but it orbits faster so there is less difference between the earth's rotation and the moons orbit. One thing you have in your favour is the law of conservation of momentum, when the moon was closer the earth span faster too (the moon gets its increased angular momentum from the earth). And of course if you start off post collision with a lump of the earth being thrown off, the moon would have had an equivalent angular momentum to the earth. Horrendous calculations but do-able. You could probably get away with ball park figures for drag with different continental layout, but the relative motion of the earth and moon is going to make a much bigger difference.

DeYoung of course leaves out most of this. He calculates how tidal pull would change if the moon was closer and its gravitational attraction stronger. But he goes nowhere near the idea that supercontinents like Pangea or Rodinia would caused much less drag. He also ignores how tidal drag changed with changing length of day and lunar month.

 

[rcorlew]

*sigh* No, it won't be a bad day for the earth. The moon will slowly recede, as it's been doing for billions of years, and when it get's close to being free, it will be orbiting so far away that it will have practically no effect on the earth. It'll only barely be visible at night by then. When it is lost it won't be a bad day on earth because of it, but the loss of the moon won't even be noticeable.

I have been told that the moon stabilizes the earth on its rotational axis, no moon no stability and we end up like Mars with oscillations in our axis tilt. That will be very bad for the earth, very very bad! (I doubt that we will make it that long though)

Just think about the moon for once though will ya, if it leaves earth where it has always been appreciated and say gets captured by Jupiter, it won't be special in that system of satellites, it may not even get noticed.

So come on, let's start a new campaign, we can call it S.O.M.E. (Save Our Moon Everybody) I will even start the campaign off right by going to Lowe's and buying two of their big spools of steel cable, that will be about 250 feet, we will only need to buy 1,351,679,750 more feet of cable which is only 10,813,438 more spools of it, come on everyone, let's chip in and save the moon for our grandchildren!

 

[shernren]

I have been told that the moon stabilizes the earth on its rotational axis, no moon no stability and we end up like Mars with oscillations in our axis tilt. That will be very bad for the earth, very very bad! (I doubt that we will make it that long though)

Just think about the moon for once though will ya, if it leaves earth where it has always been appreciated and say gets captured by Jupiter, it won't be special in that system of satellites, it may not even get noticed.

So come on, let's start a new campaign, we can call it S.O.M.E. (Save Our Moon Everybody) I will even start the campaign off right by going to Lowe's and buying two of their big spools of steel cable, that will be about 250 feet, we will only need to buy 1,351,679,750 more feet of cable which is only 10,813,438 more spools of it, come on everyone, let's chip in and save the moon for our grandchildren!

Spot on! I'll let Team Jacob know.