Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No way. My kids would take one look and start climbing.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!
Let's use the simple calculation given by DeYoung 1992 to evaluate.
....As Stacey pointed out (Stacey, 1977, pages 102-103) it makes more sense to assume that the oceanic tidal dissipation was smaller in the past, which would have the effect of making the calculation that of a minimum age, as opposed to the maximum age proposed by DeYoung. But, of course, we are comparing DeYoung (1992) with Stacey (1977), a gap of 15 years (it's nice to see that DeYoung, like Barnes, is keeping up with the tempo of current research). That gap includes Lambeck (1980) and Hansen (1982) (wherein it was demonstrated that a 4.5 billion years age was compatible). ... Hansen's (1980) results also directly contradict DeYoung, but come 12 years before. This observation does not inspire confidence in the value of DeYoung's one-equation model for the evolution of the lunar orbit. But, as made clear by Bills & Ray (1999), the constant of proportionality, which Stacey suggests is not constant, is in fact a ratio of factors that represent dissipation, and deformation. It is clear that neither of these can be constant, and once that is understood, we can see clearly that DeYoung simply did the wrong thing right, and curiously wound up with a correct form of the wrong answer.
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.
You need to be careful here, Young Earth Creationists have always been very happy with calculations that give a maximum age of the earth, even a whole list of arguments that give completely different dates. It doesn't matter because it doesn't mean the earth is that age, it could be younger, and of course they know that it is younger. What it shows, from their pov, is that the earth can't be a old as science claims, therefore the science is wrong. As well as that Juv isn't actually a YEC, though he likes the title, he is very happy with the earth being old, as long as, for some seemingly arbitrary reason, it isn't as old as geology and radiometric dating show us.
No you are better off sticking to the tactic you used in the first part of the post, showing how the creationist claim totally ignores the little details that completely unravel their claim.
One thing I have never understood is why would you want to explain the age brought up by radiometric dating? I can understand a young earth creationist because they think from scripture that the earth is only 6,000 years old or so. You accept that it is many orders of magnitude older, hundreds of millions of years old, if I remember correctly. But if you are going to accept the earth is old, and the sequence of geological periods we get, why not accept the age radiometric dating gives us too?I am not "happy" about it. The old age is something brought up by radiometric dating and need to be explained. To me, it is a good tool to arrange things into a sequence. And I do believe that the sequence indicated by various dating methods is probably true.
One thing I have never understood is why would you want to explain the age brought up by radiometric dating? I can understand a young earth creationist because they think from scripture that the earth is only 6,000 years old or so. You accept that it is many orders of magnitude older, hundreds of millions of years old, if I remember correctly. But if you are going to accept the earth is old, and the sequence of geological periods we get, why not accept the age radiometric dating gives us too?
......
Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. It does this through multiple lines of evidence, which matches calculations as well. These show an age consistent with the conclusion of practically all real geologists that the earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years old.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a 6,000 year creationist arguing for a nearly 1 billion year earth and ignoring data to do so, but somehow, I still am.
Papias
See the flaw in your reasoning there?I don't "believe" the millions of years of age, even it is given by viable methods of science. The first thing is that we only know very little of science. The second is that we will probably never know the nature of time. I don't like the 6000-year number because I think it is only another "apparent" age made by man. But I don't think the billions of years of age is true either, because it supports evolution (which is wrong) and it is simply too long to be reasonable. If fact, I don't care what the age of things are, as long as the time frame/sequence of their origin make sense.
All this understanding/confusion comes from the faith on that God's time is dramatically different from our time. The Scripture says that. And it makes perfect sense.
See the flaw in your reasoning there?
No, Peter is taking Psalm 90 and expanding the implications, not only can eons of time seem a passing moment in God's eyes, yet he can study each passing femptosecond as it ticks by, planckseconds do not rush by to fast for him. Peter also takes Moses' used of a thousand years as a day from the context of creation and applies it to the future too, people thinking Christ is taking is taking too long to return, growing impatient when God does not follow their calendar.I know. It is because I have a presumption in my mind.
Let me ask you a question: with the reference of Psalms 90, how do you see 2 Peter 3:8? Are they giving the same idea? Or is it possible that 2 Peter 3:8 is saying the opposite?
Why? you might as well argue because humans have a short life span, eternal life is a theological problem. It simply does not follow. It wasn't us that had to wait billions of years before our allotted span on earth, it was God, and he doesn't get bored or tired waiting.If the billions of years time is the real time scale of God, then the short life span of human being is a serious theological problem.
Theology is our limited attempt to understand the infinite, eternal, transendent and almighty God, of course we run into problems like that.Theology is message to us from God. It should not have such kind of problem.
No, Peter is taking Psalm 90 and expanding the implications, not only can eons of time seem a passing moment in God's eyes, yet he can study each passing femptosecond as it ticks by, planckseconds do not rush by to fast for him. Peter also takes Moses' used of a thousand years as a day from the context of creation and applies it to the future too, people thinking Christ is taking is taking too long to return, growing impatient when God does not follow their calendar.
Why? you might as well argue because humans have a short life span, eternal life is a theological problem. It simply does not follow. It wasn't us that had to wait billions of years before our allotted span on earth, it was God, and he doesn't get bored or tired waiting.
Theology is our limited attempt to understand the infinite, eternal, transendent and almighty God, of course we run into problems like that.
I think you have two options here, either you can say where God is, in eternity or living out in the CBR (a la Gerard Schroeder), time passes at a very different rate. But that doesn't mean the amount of time that has physically gone by one earth isn't real, that the earth is not actually 4.5 billion years old. Less time may have gone by with God, but the time one earth actually has gone by.All teachings in the Bible imply that God's time scale is much shorter than our time scale. Theology includes a hint given by God on this matter. So it is most reasonable for me, and everyone else, to treat the billions of years of time only as a reference, but not a true time (God's time).
The question is not whether God can watch in [ffwd] but how many times the earth rotated on its axis, how often it orbited the sun in that time, how many times a caesium atom in the continental crust oscillated as the plate slid forward.Back to the OP, the pace of plate tectonics is thought to be slow now. But it could be a normal (to us) play after a very fast forwarding on the tape of time.
I think you have two options here, either you can say where God is, in eternity or living out in the CBR (a la Gerard Schroeder), time passes at a very different rate. But that doesn't mean the amount of time that has physically gone by one earth isn't real, that the earth is not actually 4.5 billion years old. Less time may have gone by with God, but the time one earth actually has gone by.
The other is God's perception of time is different, thought God can also describe his perception of time in our terms, or simply describe any long period non literally as a day. But that still leaves that actual amount of time that has gone past real, though how long it felt is very different for God and man.
Be careful though of any approach that makes time on earth illusory, God's creation, while not the greatest reality, is still truly real. It is Hinduism that calls the universe an illusion, Christianity has always proclaimed the reality of God's creation.
The question is not whether God can watch in [ffwd] but how many times the earth rotated on its axis, how often it orbited the sun in that time, how many times a caesium atom in the continental crust oscillated as the plate slid forward.
Psalm 90:12 Teach us to number our days aright...What you said would be true IF the measured age is true. That fact is that we do not know if it is real. It is only a theoretical projection according to logic.
Could you cite me a reference on that?
This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)
As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced. The combination of consistent results from both theoretical models and paleontological evidence presents a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) give a good review of the current status of this harmony. Without realizing it, they have also explained well why the creationist arguments are unacceptable.
I don't "believe" the millions of years of age, even it is given by viable methods of science. The first thing is that we only know very little of science.
The second is that we will probably never know the nature of time.
I don't like the 6000-year number because I think it is only another "apparent" age made by man.
But I don't think the billions of years of age is true either, because it supports evolution (which is wrong)
and it is simply too long to be reasonable.
If fact, I don't care what the age of things are, as long as the time frame/sequence of their origin make sense.
Juvie wrote:
In reponse to where I had written "Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. "
OK, here's the relevant part, with references.
and here are references used:
Williams, G.E.
Tidal Rhythmites - Key to the History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbit
Journal of the Physics of the Earth 38(6): 475-491, 1990
Williams, G.E.
Precambrian Length of Day and the Validity of Tidal Rhythmite paleotidal Values
Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424, February 15, 1997
Archer, A.W.
Reliability of lunar orbital periods extracted from ancient cyclic tidal rhythmites
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141(1-4): 1-10, June 1996
Lambeck, Kurt
The Earth's Variable Rotation - Geophysical causes and consequences
Cambridge University Press, 1980
Bills, B.G. & R.D. Ray Lunar Orbital Evolution: A Synthesis of Recent Results
Geophysical Research Letters 26(19): 3045-3048, October 1, 1999
An accelerated recession rate somehow does not fit my common sense.
I checked a more recent work by William G.E. (2000). He was not so sure about the accuracy of his method. And, it seems he still thought the recession rate is becoming slower through time. (I am not sure because I am impatient to read through his lengthy argument)
OK, thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?