Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Metsfanmax]

You might need to copy and paste to get parenthesis in for address, but how about check here if you're basically rewording stuff from a Talk Origins page? http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_recedin ... lk.Origins)

I'm not sure exactly what is going on in this page, but I skimmed it and it says nothing about the effect of the oceans on the tidal friction. Since the oceans are the source of the tidal friction, there's no reason to take this analysis seriously.

If you are going to counter evidence for young earth like modern models are not complex enough to explain why there would be an apparent contradiction with conventional timescales, do you have any evidence not based on circular reasoning and uniformitarianism assumptions that suggests earth IS more than 6,000 years old? What is your biggest piece of evidence if you think you have more than one?

I don't think there's any way to convince you that logical thinking and the scientific method are not "circular reasoning." But I'm surely going to point out bad understanding of actual science when I see it. If you are ignoring the effect of the oceans on tidal dissipation, then you don't understand tidal dissipation.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that people refer to this science as "uniformitarianism" given that religion is the institution that much more commonly demands your unthinking obeisance to the truths it feeds to you.

[AAFitz]

Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!

Not really.

[AAFitz]

Huh? Are you trying to argue that the distance did not increase at a faster rate in the past?

Actually, I am suggesting it may very well have increased at a slower rate. The further the moon gets away from us, the less the gravity between the two affects each other, and all other things being equal, it should move away faster in the future.

In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

[Lionz]

How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

5:1 Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

[Metsfanmax]

In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

You can't say things like that to someone who rejects this as circular reasoning. You are taking it as a given that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, and then attempting to reconcile other data by just saying "obviously it can't conflict." That won't convince someone like Lionz, and anyways it's not science.

Now, it's true that the reason we were led to think more deeply about the issue is because a naive assumption some people held conflicted with other data; but when we made our assumptions more complex and realistic, we found that there's no conflict between the two sets of data.

[AAFitz]

How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

5:1 Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

Youre the one not using common sense. As I said, if it is moving away at a rate now that would have put it in contact with the earth, than obviously, that rate was slower in the past, just as the rate will be faster in the future.

More The rate in the past could have been as small as a hundreth of a millimeter, and slowly increased as the moon moved further and further away, which is exactly what you would expect.

youeth are failing basic math, and while I can pardon eth, I would rather teacheth, lest you may open your eyes and see.

[Metsfanmax]

How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

Since you asked for common sense, let's put it this way. If a car is now moving away from you now at 60 miles per hour, does that it mean it was always moving at 60 miles per hour away from you?

[AAFitz]

In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

You can't say things like that to someone who rejects this as circular reasoning. You are taking it as a given that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, and then attempting to reconcile other data by just saying "obviously it can't conflict." That won't convince someone like Lionz, and anyways it's not science.

Now, it's true that the reason we were led to think more deeply about the issue is because a naive assumption some people held conflicted with other data; but when we made our assumptions more complex and realistic, we found that there's no conflict between the two sets of data.

The obviously it cant conflict isnt the important part, and as I said, it may very well conflict anyways. The point is, if the earth is moving away at one rate of speed now, it was necessarily moving away at a slower speed in the past, because the hold is less and less each time it moves away, so the rate is increasing now, and must have been increasing in the past.

His point that going at the same rate through history is devoid of even the most basic understanding of gravity.

[AAFitz]

How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

Since you asked for common sense, let's put it this way. If a car is now moving away from you now at 60 miles per hour, does that it mean it was always moving at 60 miles per hour away from you?

I almost used that same example, but its the gravity that changes the rate, not arbitrarily hitting a gas pedal, though it is possible impacts from other objects could have hit the gas pedal so to speak, but ignoring that.... As two objects get further apart, there is less force, so they will accelerate, or decelerate even, but there is no way that two masses that dont change, will move away at the same distance at the same rate, without some other force, and obviously so. Given the two massive masses, and the tiny relative distance they are moving now, it is obvious that that rate in the past was nearly negligible, and that anyone using straight-line figures to estimate where it was 3 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago, really, is kind of an idiot.

I'm not even completely knowledgeable about it, and it was immediately obvious that figuring that rate backwards at the same rate, for billions of years, is so wrong as to be purposefully misleading or...as I said, idiotic.

[AAFitz]

Lets make this easy Lionz.

Do you think that as the moon moves away from the earth, its rate of departure will stay the same over the next billion years?

What do you expect the rate of departure to do in the future, as the two bodies move further, and further away?

Do you think the rate will stay the same, even though there is less force acting on the moon?

Do you think the rate will increase as they get further away as there is less force and the moon accelerates minutely into the future?

Do you hope God just ends it for you, so you dont have to answer these obvious and basic questions, that show how ridiculous your earlier suggestion was?

[Metsfanmax]

I almost used that same example, but its the gravity that changes. As two objects get further apart, there is less force, so they will accelerate, or decelerate even, but there is no way that two masses that dont change, will move away at the same distance at the same rate, without some other force, and obviously so. Given the two massive masses, and the tiny relative distance they are moving now, it is obvious that that rate in the past was nearly negligible, and that anyone using straight-line figures to estimate where it was 3 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago, really, is kind of an idiot.

I'm not even completely knowledgeable about it, and it was immediately obvious that figuring that rate backwards at the same rate, for billions of years, is so wrong as to be purposefully misleading or...as I said, idiotic.

Sure. You can get a naive estimate of the age of the system by using the current rate, and just assuming it was constant for all time. Now, Lionz cited a source that did a slightly more complicated calculation, and extrapolated the strength of the tidal force backwards in time, which gives a more accurate answer but doesn't change it by, say, an order of magnitude. Let's say Lionz does understand the source he cited. Then what is ignorant is considering the gravitational physics involved while at the same time neglecting the physics of the ocean water that is ultimately responsible for the tidal torque on the system. That's even worse than just completely rejecting science; he's using some science to prove a point he wants, as if that argumentation is legitimate, without considering the full complexity of the problem.

[Lionz]

So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past? And would the moon need to be even a 10% closer than now to seriously mess stuff up?

[Metsfanmax]

So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past?

Your source doesn't understand the basic science here, which is the problem. Your source assumes that we don't need to worry about all the complicated physics that results in the way the oceans respond to the tidal force exerted by the Moon, and the way the oceans correspondingly interact with the continents and the Earth's rotation. Unless there's any sort of argumentation explaining why we don't need to worry about such complicating factors, the argument is meaningless.

This may be surprising to you, but we astrophysicists aren't in the habit of visiting the creation wiki when we need help understanding physics problems.

[AAFitz]

So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past? And would the moon need to be even a 10% closer than now to seriously mess stuff up?

No, it is you who is bending the rate, or more aptly, making it up.

And if the moon was 10% closer, things would be different. Also, things were different.

I don't think anyone suggested the earth has remained unchanged for billions of years. In fact, we are arguing the exact opposite.

But again....what will the rate do in the future? Will it slow, or will it get faster? Or did it slow, and will it now just stay constant indefinitely? (assuming all other things being equal) And why? We can even pretend the last 4.5 billion years didnt happen if you'd like.

If the moon is moving away from the earth at a certain rate now, what will it do in the future?

Also, if a planet crashed into the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and the moon formed a little closer than where it is now, wouldnt ignoring that make your sources calculations absolutely meaningless in every way?

[Lionz]

"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon

Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?

And AAFitz, what can the moon starting relatively close to where it is now do to help you if it is moving away about 4 cm annually? Did it just start moving away less than a few thousand years ago?