You analogy seems to somewhat fit with what is found on a revolving disk, like a vinyl record on a turntable. The outer edge is traveling at a higher velocity but the same rpms as the label at the center. If the regression rate would be less, then the time required for the Moon to reach it's current orbit would necessarily be longer, if the Moon was closer creating a slower regression rate. We then have the tidal forces on the water and land on both bodies, but there does not seem to be any scientific evidence showing the gravity and tidal effects of a near Moon orbit.
There is much we don't know of the Earth from 4.5 billion years ago. What would such evidence even be?
???? How is it possible to obtain scientific evidence of something one cannot observe, experience, calculate, or even guess at due to it being in a very distant past?
Well you make a point I have been trying to make as well. With no scientific evidence one can observe, experience or calculate of a distant past, how can there be any claims there even was a distant past?
There are no claims of fact, we have what is referred to as "Theory" or "Hypothesis"....I think this may be the bulk of your confusion and misunderstanding. In scientific pursuit of knowledge we begin with an hypothesis...this is then reviewed for possibility and usefulness. Should said hypothesis indicate through thought experiment and moderately stringent observation to be minimally valid, it grows up into theory. Once a Theory is accepted by the community as truly possible it goes through painstaking and extensive evaluation by many separate entities for what can be forever. Experimentation and Physical observation of the results either forward it or debunk it...though often these actually lead to further hypothesis creation and the same process is done for that. The point here being that the impact and lunar creation hypothesis has gone through the first part and enough evidence gathered to advance many aspects to theory. Though as is usually the case there are many separate pieces to the puzzle to be evaluated and studied...in essence their is not a single theory, but many parts being studied by the scientists that specialize in those particular fields. There is a very good reason Creation is considered myth....as it never left the hypothesis stage for lack of anything to study.
I agree with the first part of your response, what you seem to be ignorant of is that to date most, if not all, of the evidences from research, experiments and observation will fit into a Creation model for life and the universe. All the other 'theories' must be adjusted to fit the evidence, a sort of circuitous methodology that really should not be called science.
Interesting...as all the data you refer to is independent of this "Creation Model", most of what I note is Christians adjusting it to encompass the new Data.
I like the gravitational capture idea myself, when it comes to the moons around planets in our solar system. Something that would become the moon came close enough to be captured. The sun captured planets, in some primordial form, and the planets captured smaller objects. Or the coyotes needed something so they could learn how to howl at the moon.
Quite the contrary, old earthers ignore data that does not fit their model. Try, just try to remove your biases and look at the exact same data and try to see if it would possibly fit a Creation model before you discount the model.
Would that be the creation model taken from Genesis...or version created to fit the data? If the former....Six Days might be just a bit off (SIC)...and it would be extremely difficult to grow plants without sunlight. If he the later....then sure, we can make up anything we want and change it as needed.
In my view.....It did not create anything, nor did it play in the Mud to make my great/242nd grandparents. But according to genesis, it created the "Heavens and the Earth"....how's that for vague?
This clown is ignorant and a troll. When you point out our he ignores you to keep his open mind I guess . Open to nonsense
It might be nice if you contributed something instead of simply writing how wrong I am. It is easier to knock something down that to build it. I've asked for evidence, not conjecture or suppositions supporting your belief system, with little to no response. Your turn for a change.
The speed of the Moon's recession has not been constant, because that speed is determined by the distribution of continents on the face of the Earth, which has not been constant. In recent geological times, with the continents (particularly the Americas) spread out and arranged strongly north-south, the speed of recession has been greater than it was in the remote past, when there was one giant supercontinent. The reason for this is that the Moon gains angular momentum from the tides pushing against the continents on Earth. When tides push against continents the tidal bulge of the sea is shifted eastward by the Earth's rotation. This eastward-shifted bulge pulls the Moon easterward (forward) in its orbit. The amount of the eastward displacement of the seas is directly tied to the amount of north-south coastline of Earth's continents, which pushes the bulge. The speed of the Moon's recession can be determined in growth patterns of corals, which have both daily and yearly patterns. That allows us to determine the number of days per year in the distant past, therefore the amount of angular momentum lost by the Earth, therefore the amount of angular momentum gained by the Moon, therefore its distance. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html "The calculated position of the lunar orbit 4.5 billion years ago is found to range from 38 to 53 earth radii" Hansen, Kirk S. Secular Effects of Oceanic Tidal Dissipation on the Moon's Orbit and the Earth's Rotation Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 20(3): 457-480, August 1982
I suppose this is what your request is about? There are huge amounts of data showing the ways in which our planet formed, as well as the ways in which Homo Sapiens evolved into what we see today. The server on this website could not handle the amount of Data that support these things, and to expect me to provide it is little more than a ploy to avoid research that would show the reality you are trying to avoid. The information to support your position can easily be summed up in the genesis story, and contains absolutely no hard data. The Bible(s) are not evidence for anything other than creative writing in ancient societies.
talkorigins.org as a source? Okay!?!? How near the Earth was the Moon 'in the beginning'? Are other current day scientific measurements also inconsistent with m.y.a. - b.y.a. or just the convenient ones.?
I have been asking for one, (singular) piece of hard evidence for your evolution myth. But, so far only insults and attempts to ridicule Creation/ ID theories. Show us your hand or fold.
I have already provided data as you requests...but, will do so again only this time you need to open a link. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 Whales are a very good example of both Evolution and the ways in which we figure it out.
You certainly don't read very well, do you? You might want to go back and read what I wrote again. All of it. Yes they are, all of them.
A drawing is your evidence for evolution? That's funny! Almost as funny as the unnamed author's fairy tale with quite a few "facts" that have been discredited decades ago, i.e. vestigial hip/leg bones. How rapidly did the whale evolve from a hippo, it must have been really quickly to go from an animal living in fresh water to one living in saline sea water otherwise the fist venture into the salt water, the missing link would die instantly and never reproduce if it survived the extremely cold temperatures of the deep ocean. That's just a silly example of non-scientific 'evidence'
