Evolution's view of the moon

[Henhouse]

I admit my education has been 99% YEC. So, therfore, there are some things I've never heard the evolutionary explination for.

I'm simply asking how evolution explains the age of the moon, especially with regards to the facts of: (lack of) moon dust, and the moon moving farther away from the earth (meaning it used to be closer the farther back in time you go).

I will not debate any points unless asked to do so, and maybe not then. I just want to know what mainstream science says about this.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Evolution is a biological theory. It has nothing to with the moon, a non-biological object.

However, here is an explanation of the amount of moondust:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

 

[lucaspa]

I admit my education has been 99% YEC. So, therfore, there are some things I've never heard the evolutionary explination for.

I'm simply asking how evolution explains the age of the moon, especially with regards to the facts of: (lack of) moon dust, and the moon moving farther away from the earth (meaning it used to be closer the farther back in time you go).

I will not debate any points unless asked to do so, and maybe not then. I just want to know what mainstream science says about this.

Henhouse, you are using "evolutionary" the way creationists often use it, which is anything against creationism. However, Fragments point was that this is not the correct way to use it. Science is broken down into disciplines and theories. Theories do not explain everything. Cell theory doesn't explain comets, gravity doesn't explain mitochondria, for instance. Evolution is a biological theory explain the diversity of plants and animals on the earth. It is not meant to, and can't, explain the arguments you are using, which are YEC arguments for a young earth.

The moon dust argument is simply based on bad data. The original study of infall of dust was done by collecting dust at the top of Hawaii's volcanic mountains. The idea was to avoid contamination from dust from earth and get only dust coming from space. It didn't work. There was a lot of contamination from dust thrown up by volcanoes (including the volcanoes the instruments were placed on!). When we got satellites in orbit and were able to get better measurements, the infall of dust turns out to be exactly what we would find on the moon if it were 4.5 billion years old. So the amount of moon dust is another piece of scientific evidence against 6,000 years.

A long and detailed explanation of the moon moving away from the earth is given here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

 

[Henhouse]

Henhouse, you are using "evolutionary" the way creationists often use it, which is anything against creationism. However, Fragments point was that this is not the correct way to use it.

Beg pardon. I didn't mean to use "creationist" lingo...
Would it help if I changed "evolution" to "the big bang theory"?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

No
The Theory of Planetary Creation would be more percise, but we've witnessed planetary dust disk via hubble so its not really a theory, but a fact.

The moon moves at an inch per year, but we don't know if this has always been consistent. So thats not a very good point to use in YEC theology, by the way your Science book wouldn't happen to be Alpha-Omega or ACE?

 

[lucaspa]

Beg pardon. I didn't mean to use "creationist" lingo...
Would it help if I changed "evolution" to "the big bang theory"?

As Aduro said, Big Bang doesn't really cover the formation of the solar system or the two arguments you used either. But it was a try in the right direction.

You can see what happens, tho. Creationists tend to dump everything that is against young earth or the special creation of species into one big box -- evolution. This makes communication problems because you say "evolution" and we hear "biological evolution" or the diversity of life on the planet. And then say, what does the dust on the moon have to do with getting the diversity of life on the planet? At YEC sites, the link is: biological evolution requites a long amount of time. Therefore if the earth is young, there isn't enough time for biological evolution to occur.

Thus, this is an end-run attack on biological evolution, but it requires knowledge outside the discipline of biology. Biologists, therefore, will reply "I don't know." because they don't, and the creationist debator gets to say "AHA! See, evolution is impossible!" What the debator doesn't tell you is that there is an answer, just that biologists don't know it.

Now, I realize you didn't do this. You asked an honest question and didn't try the debating trick. Which is why Fragments and I gave you honest answers. I'm writing this just to let you know what the debating trick is so that if you ever encounter a more hostile answer, you know where it's coming from. The "evolutionist" isn't reacting to you, but responding to having been caught up in the debating trick before.

 

[notto]

Answers in Genesis concurs with 'evolutionists' that the moon dust argument is incorrect and is no longer useful.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp

[size=+1]CONCLUSIONS[/size] Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists' timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists ' case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I admit my education has been 99% YEC. So, therfore, there are some things I've never heard the evolutionary explination for.

I'm simply asking how evolution explains the age of the moon, especially with regards to the facts of: (lack of) moon dust, and the moon moving farther away from the earth (meaning it used to be closer the farther back in time you go).

I will not debate any points unless asked to do so, and maybe not then. I just want to know what mainstream science says about this.

Henhouse,

How can 99% of your education be YEC?

Did you not attend any school?

You know I am friends with some lawyers who could represent you in legal action against whomever did this unfortunate thing to you. I see you are of majority age. Don't sit back and let those responsible for screwing up your education get away with it. This is America. Sue their backsides off.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Henhouse,

How can 99% of your education be YEC?

Did you not attend any school?

You know I am friends with some lawyers who could represent you in legal action against whomever did this unfortunate thing to you. I see you are of majority age. Don't sit back and let those responsible for screwing up your education get away with it. This is America. Sue their backsides off.

My Education is(or will be) 50% YEC, I've been in a Christian School since the 6th grade.
Silly lil' YEC's claiming "Evoluiton has never been witnessed" and the "diversity" of the outer solar system.

 

[Henhouse]

Thanks, guys, for keeping this civil. I appreciate your input.

 

[Godzman]

If you want to know how old he is ask him?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Mr. moon, how did you get up in the sky about 200k years ago?

 

[Godzman]

ZZZZZZZZ

 

[=Joel=]

lol

 

[ThePhoenix]

Mr. moon, how did you get up in the sky about 200k years ago?

Mr. Magus, why do you keep misrepresenting everything? That 200k estimate is off by about 4 orders of magnitude.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Mr. Magus, why do you keep misrepresenting everything? That 200k estimate is off by about 4 orders of magnitude.

oh, i'm sorry, i didn't know you where there at the time Thanks for the info.

*i'm joking around!*

Evolution is a biological theory. It has nothing to with the moon, a non-biological object.

This is the basic line of faith in evolution: something discredits the posiblity of creation coming to be without the direct hand of God= 'not part of evolution'

 

[lucaspa]

This is the basic line of faith in evolution: something discredits the posiblity of creation coming to be without the direct hand of God= 'not part of evolution'

Evolution is defined very precisely in scientific language. It is not a theory of everything. No scientific theory is. Gravity doesn't explain thermodynamics; cell theory doesn't explain nuclear fusion; DNA as hereditary material doesn't explain the formation of mountains; evolution doesn't explain the origin of the moon.

Darwin was very clear about this in Origin. Evolution explains only the diversity of life on the planet. It doesn't explain even the origin of life, much less the origin of the moon.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Evolution is defined very precisely in scientific language.

keep it to that and we can have yong-earth evolution.

 

[Bushido216]

That's not what he said.

Have you been taking lessons from Ark Guy?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

That's not what he said.

Have you been taking lessons from Ark Guy?

LOL

this is a fun thread.