End of Year

The Moon is Shrinking!

The Shrinking Moon

In a recent article on Fox News, a new study has shown that our moon is shrinking because of internal cooling.

According to the study, there has been about 328 feet (100 meters) of change in the moon’s radius over the course of about one billion years, says Thomas Watters.

He found that the lobate scarps (physical markers of contraction on the lunar surface) were small and narrow—the largest ones being no more than 6.2 miles (10 km) in length. Their pristine appearance was also a good indication of their young age.

“We don’t see any impact craters superimposed on them,” Watters says. “They have not been partially obliterated by impact craters that have hit them, so this tells us that they are very young.”

The Moon is Young

So the evidence indicates the moon is shrinking. Great research, great observations, but partially wrong conclusions!  Jump, frog, jump! (See Seminar part 4) I would agree that the “lobate scarps” are most likely evidence of lunar shrinkage. I would also agree that the fact they have not been “obliterated by impact craters” indicates they are young. I would also agree that they are most likely indicators that the moon’s interior is cooling. I would disagree with the author’s premise that the moon is billions of years old.

I would suggest that anyone interested in the craters on the moon or the source of the moon’s internal heat read carefully Walt Brown’s excellent book In The Beginning. If the moon’s craters (and consequent internal heat from the impacts) are a result of debris hitting it at the time of Noah’s flood (see Seminar part 6) then it would be predictable that the cooling and these cracks would come AFTER that event about 4,400 years ago. Whether the moon’s internal heat is from impacts or not, it still indicates a young age for the moon. “I have a theory about that …” (see Seminar part 1). God created everything in the universe (Exo. 20:11) about 6,000 years ago just like God’s Word clearly teaches. This recent finding is just more scientific evidence that God’s Word has been true all along.

I pray these NASA folks keep studying to learn the true origin of the moon.

Further Study:

In the Beginning by Walt Brown
The Young Earth by John Morris

,

Leave28 Responses to testThe Moon is Shrinking!

  1. Jack Napper October 1, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    “I would suggest that anyone interested in the craters on the moon or the source of the moon’s internal heat read carefully Walt Brown’s excellent book In The Beginning.”

    According to Brown’s bio (from his self-published book) he has a degree in mechanical engineering. Apparently this makes him qualified to speak on all things science.

    “If the moon’s craters (and consequent internal heat from the impacts) are a result of debris hitting it at the time of Noah’s flood (see Seminar part 6) then it would be predictable that the cooling and these cracks would come AFTER that event about 4,400 years ago.”

    Except that you still have to to provide some evidence of Noah’s flood or that the debris came from the flood. That whole sentence is evidence that Creationist work backwards from a conclusion and try and find evidence that supports it (committing dozen’s of fallacies along the way). Brown’s ‘hydroplate theory’ was discredited within weeks of its proposal. The idea that craters on the moon are the result of has been making the rounds lately on YouTube and has been thoroughly discredited. Debunking videos refer to it jokingly but I wont list it here. Just type ‘Noah’s flood’ and ‘nozzle’ into the search field on YouTube and I’m sure you’ll find it eventually.

    “Whether the moon’s internal heat is from impacts or not, it still indicates a young age for the moon.”

    Baseless assertion.

    “I have a theory about that  (see Seminar part 1). God created everything in the universe (Exo. 20:11) about 6,000 years ago just like God’s Word clearly teaches.

    Yeah I’ve watched. It’s full of errors such as the premise that the moon is anywhere near as old as the Earth.

    “This recent finding is just more scientific evidence that God’s Word has been true all along.”

    Baseless assertion that simply DOES NOT FOLLOW.

    “I pray these NASA folks keep studying to learn the true origin of the moon.”

    FACEPALM

  2. Evan Olcott October 2, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    So much twisting going on here that even Chubby Checker is jealous.

  3. Dale Evjen October 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Read Our Created Moon by Don DeYoung & Dr. John Whitcomb.

    Discover how the evolutionists haven’t a clue how the moon could have been formed in a naturalistic process.

  4. Nigel McNaughton October 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Wait, I thought the craters on the moon were from the fight between Gabriel and the Angels vs the Demons?

  5. ant bourdon October 3, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    Jack;
    Thank you for providing infos here which means arguments or sources. You made baseless assertions exactly like you said others were doing.

    “Apparently this makes him qualified to speak on all things science.”

    Why are Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hacking talking the origin of the universe then? They do not have any study in philosophy and they have no science to offer either to be able to talk these subjects. Why should we look at the diploma to see if someone is right or not anyway? aren’t we able to argue against something if it is wrong and positively support something which is true? Are you telling me that when somebody tells you something, you believe him without questions if he has a diploma in that field? Don’t you know that there are some dentists that are bad in their job and just want your money?

    “Except that you still have to to provide some evidence of Noah’s flood or that the debris came from the flood. That whole sentence is evidence that Creationist work backwards from a conclusion and try and find evidence that supports it”

    The flood hypothesis starts from the fact that there are stratas of dirt everywhere on earth which means that in a not so distant past, all the areas of the earth were under the sea even the oceans. This is a pretty scientific observation from where we can start. The other observation is that there are millions of fossils which means that millions of animals must have been preserved under water (in layers). Do you know of many land animals which are going in the lakes or the sea to die? The real philosophy that works backward is yours. You starts from the hypothesis that all animals evolved from the same original parents, but you can’t show any transitional fossils, every fossils being completely formed without any useless bones. And you can’t show any living and evolving animal either.
    “The idea that craters on the moon are the result of has been making the rounds lately on YouTube and has been thoroughly discredited”
    Anyone can post on youtube. What you are saying has no credibility. Anyways, most videos have no reasonable thoughts to offer on youtube. There are too many videos made by thoughtless people.

    “Whether the moon’s internal heat is from impacts or not, it still indicates a young age for the moon.”

    Baseless assertion.”

    On this, I’ll give you one point. The heat of the moon may be caused by something else that we do not know. But the small amount of dust on the moon does prove its young age, I think. The moon cannot be millions of years old since there would be more dust then what we find today.

    “Yeah I’ve watched. It’s full of errors such as the premise that the moon is anywhere near as old as the Earth.”

    Do you have any proof that the moon is not as old as the earth.

    “This recent finding is just more scientific evidence that God’s Word has been true all along.”

    Baseless assertion that simply DOES NOT FOLLOW.”

    This assertion is based on the arguments made before. There is no need to discuss a conclusion. We need to discuss the arguments before the conclusion. If it is true that this assertion is baseless, yours is useless. Stop scoffing and start arguing.

    “I pray these NASA folks keep studying to learn the true origin of the moon.”

    The origin of the moon cannot be found by science. If any event happened to make it, history and erosion made the evidences disappear, so it is pointless to pray for that. We can only make hypothesis which will never be verified because we can’t go backward in time.

  6. ant bourdon October 3, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    even mountains… correct

  7. Jeff Brace October 4, 2010 at 5:24 am #

    Jack – what would be your qualifications to rebutt the story? Other than your bias of hating anything that speaks to God that is. The evidence of Creation is all around you. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people would go to such lengths to make a fool of themselves. I am sure that “praying to NASA” will certainly give you the wisdom you seek.

  8. Geno Castagnoli October 4, 2010 at 7:03 am #

    Eric wrote:
    “I would suggest that anyone interested in the craters on the moon or the source of the moon’s internal heat read carefully Walt Brown’s excellent book In The Beginning. If the moon’s craters (and consequent internal heat from the impacts) are a result of debris hitting it at the time of Noah’s flood ….”

    For the last several weeks, I have been trying to arrange a debate with Dr. Brown on certain aspects of his model. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree on the terms and conditions of the debate.

    The key problem is, according to Brown, his model releases the energy of 1,500 TRILLION hydrogen bombs. This is enough energy to raise every drop of water on the planet from freezing and boil it nearly 3,000 times over. Putting it another way, over 99.96% of the energy in his model can go anywhere else and the remaining 0.04% will still sterilize the planet. If we consider the impact on the atmosphere it is far worse. Only 0.00005% of the energy is enough to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by more than 100 C (180 degrees F). There is no process that is 99.96% efficient, let alone 99.99995%.

    Dr. Brown has not contacted me since I pointed that out to him.

  9. ant bourdon October 4, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    Geno Castagnol;
    I’ve read something one year ago that was proposing that the energy can be released in different ways. Even if a cannon releases a lot of energy, it doesn’t heat everything around neither heat the projectile to the point of making it melt. The energy is transformed in speed in the bullet. I’m pretty aware that other hydroplate theories proposes that most of the energy coming out of the centre of the earth went in space in the form of speed and not of heat and produced comets made of water. the energy remaining made the rain fall on the earth during 40 days. Also, it took one year for all the energy to be released because after the first burst the hydroplates would start moving toward continents. The oceans had time to cool everything on time. Still, is there a way to prove these assertions? It is a theory, you may listen to that, it will never be proven because we were not there when it happened. And we can’t know what it looked like before the catastrophe happened. The only things observable are the effects of a global flood because we can see that all the earth was under water to be able to produce the layers of dirt. So, you may argue how a global flood could happen, but the evidences shows that it did happen.

  10. Geno Castagnoli October 4, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    Dale Evjen wrote:
    Discover how the evolutionists haven’t a clue how the moon could have been formed in a naturalistic process.

    Geno replies:
    It’s called the “impact theory”. Basically, the Earth collided with a Mars size object.

    A bit more about the moon’s craters:
    According to Brown, the largest objects striking the moon were about 200 meters across. Some craters on the moon are over 100 km (62 miles) across. In order for a 200 meter object to cause a 100 km crater, the object would need to have a velocity of about 10,000,000 mph.

    Further, in Brown’s model, the average velocity of the impactors is around 50 km (31 miles) per second. If the model were true, the vast majority of impact craters on the moon should be on the side facing Earth. They aren’t. Most of the impact craters on the moon are on the far side.

  11. Gary Hendricks October 4, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    Geno –

    Of course Dr. Brown has not contacted you…he simply has no answer to the truth that a scientist would not be able to see through. Once again this is a glaring example of VERY BAD science being embraced by young earthers purely because it agrees with their foregone conclusions. When the truth of this bad science is pointed out they simply rely on the combined bias and ignorance that is present in all who have already made up their minds and will agree with them no matter what.

    Once again people…the Earth really is round and revolves around the sun no matter what Luther and Calvin said. They were wrong then…the Hovind’s are wrong now.

    “The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
    Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they display knowledge.
    There is no speech or language
    where their voice is not heard.”
    Psalm 19:1-3

    As Christians we can learn about God’s creation by studying it. According to the psalmist they literally pour forth their speech and display their knowledge. Why is this principle so hard to accept? If science is in contradiction with your “interpretation” of the bible…then come down off your high horse for long enough to examine what may be wrong with your interpretation. We have long ago passed the point in scientific discovery to have ANY excuse for maintaining the silly notion of a 6000 year old universe just like we have for believing the Earth is flat and stationary.

  12. Mark James October 5, 2010 at 4:05 am #

    Hi Gary,

    A question for you; could God have created the universe in 6 days if He had wanted to do it that way?

  13. Geno Castagnoli October 5, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    ant bourdon wrote:
    I’ve read something one year ago that was proposing that the energy can be released in different ways. Even if a cannon releases a lot of energy, it doesn’t heat everything around neither heat the projectile to the point of making it melt. The energy is transformed in speed in the bullet.
    *******
    Geno replies:
    That is true. However, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, when the bullet stops the kinetic energy must go somewhere. Here’s a hint: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance.

    Ant wrote:
    I’m pretty aware that other hydroplate theories proposes that most of the energy coming out of the centre of the earth went in space in the form of speed and not of heat and produced comets made of water.
    ******
    Geno replies:
    I don’t think you realize how really bad the consequences of Brown’s model are. For one thing, the energy released in hydrogen bombs is expressed (mostly) as heat. Just consider how many 1,500 TRILLION is. The surface of the planet is only 196,940,400 square miles. That’s 7,616,517 hydrogen bombs per square mile or one hydrogen bomb for every 3.66 square feet over the entire surface of the planet.

    Dr. Brown claims all the meteors, asteroids, and comets were ejected from Earth to space in his model. When I did an analysis of that, if only 10% of the ejected material fails to achieve escape velocity and returns to Earth, there will be enough heat (by friction with the atmosphere) to boil every drop of water on the planet. Radiating that heat to space would require an atmospheric temperature of over 5,000 F. This is roughly the surface temperature of the star Betelgeuse… and the Earth would glow at about the same color….. and that’s just ONE of many heating aspects of the Hydroplate theory.

    Ant wrote:
    the energy remaining made the rain fall on the earth during 40 days.
    ********
    Geno replies:
    When water condenses from a vapor to a liquid, it releases a LOT of heat. It’s called “the Latent Heat of Condensation.” The condensation of enough water vapor to form sufficient rainfall to cover the Earth to a depth of only 1 meter (about 39 inches) will release enough heat energy to increase atmospheric temperatures by 240C (432F). We cook Thanksgiving dinner at lower temperatures.

    Ant wrote:
    Also, it took one year for all the energy to be released because after the first burst the hydroplates would start moving toward continents.
    *********
    Geno replies:
    Actually, Dr. Brown says the “launch phase” was over in a few weeks. For some reason, I tend to think he had something like 40 days in mind…..

    Ant wrote:
    The oceans had time to cool everything on time.
    **********
    Geno replies:
    The Hydroplate theory starts out with a huge amount of “supercritical” water stored underground at a temperature over 750F. It also says roughly half the water now in Earth’s oceans came from this underground chamber. For some reason, I don’t think you’re going to get enough cooling from half the modern oceans being added from a 750 degree supply.

    Ant wrote:
    Still, is there a way to prove these assertions?
    *******
    Geno replies:
    Well, there’s a way to prove they won’t work. Physics, not evolution, is the worst nightmare of Biblical creationism.

    Ant wrote:
    It is a theory, you may listen to that, it will never be proven because we were not there when it happened. And we can’t know what it looked like before the catastrophe happened. The only things observable are the effects of a global flood because we can see that all the earth was under water to be able to produce the layers of dirt. So, you may argue how a global flood could happen, but the evidences shows that it did happen.
    **********
    Geno replies:
    Except for:
    1) An identifiable flood layer. Geologists are pretty good at identifying flood strata, with a global flood, there should be a global layer much like the iridium layer at the K-T boundary.
    2) A source for the water that won’t cook the planet. All of the creation “science” flood models suffer from this fatal flaw.
    3) A place for the water to go after the flood.

  14. Gary Hendricks October 5, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    Hi Mark,

    A question for you; Could God have created a flat and stationary Earth with the Universe revolving around it if He had wanted to do it that way?

    Now…you can either blow me off and dodge my point again or you can show a measure of objectivity and recognize that my question is equally as valid as yours. But I will still answer your question. In fact I believe God could have created the universe and everything in it in 6 nanoseconds “if He had wanted to do it that way”. With regards to my question, however, I think you and I will agree that there is clear evidence that He did not choose to create a flat Earth with a universe revolving around it.

    The fact remains that one of the ways He reveals Himself to us, according to scripture, is through His creation itself. There came a point in time Christians (well…most anyway) accepted that the long standing and nearly universally adopted belief that the Earth was flat had to be an error in our limited understanding. We reached this point NOT because we studied the Bible more carefully or accurately, but because the scientific proof had become overwhelmingly clear to all but the profoundly ignorant. Then, and ONLY then, did the church go back and evaluate their scriptural understanding and find their error.

    Mark, these silly dodges reveal a profoundly stubborn spirit within you and those like you. And don’t try the lame defense on me that you are stubborn on the Word of God because it is no more valid for you than it was for Luther or Calvin. No, your stubbornness is based on nothing but your own understanding and has nothing to do with what God said or did. In the end it is a prideful spirit that gives birth to such stubbornness. Pride in the belief that your interpretation is the ONLY possible correct one. Most of the Christian church is waking up to the reality that once again we made a mistake. And sadly, once again this discovery did NOT come by a better understanding of the Bible but because the scientific proof has become overwhelmingly clear to all but the profoundly ignorant.

  15. Geno Castagnoli October 5, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Mark James wrote (to Gary):
    A question for you; could God have created the universe in 6 days if He had wanted to do it that way?
    ***********
    Geno asks:
    A question for you; Could God have created the universe in 13.7 billion years with no more effort than a single thought if He had wanted to do it that way?

  16. ant bourdon October 5, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Gary;
    Why do you put every young earth believer in the same pot of interpreting the Bible literally? I didn’t answer what you said to me on the other blog because it was closed, but I must tell you that believing in a young earth is not a question of literal interpretation of the Bible. It is only a question of observation. I’m not sure if we should believe in a 6 days creation because it could have happened in 1 second, but I’m certain that we can’t believe in millions of years because for example there is not a lot of dust on the moon, which example makes millions of years impossible by itself. The 6 days creation is possible as well as a 5 thousands years creation could be. I, for myself, think we could believe in an instant creation and interpret days as something else than a calculation of time. But we all know pretty well that evolution doesn’t happen (no star formation, no transitional fossils) and a succession of miracles to simulate an evolution would be useless… And it would still contradict the evidences.

    I will object to you that science doesn’t contradict a 6 days creation, but pseudo science does. You only look too much at the diploma and less to what is logical. You are the one which call others arrogant, but you call ignorant creationists and you didn’t even study what is right in the creation theory… you only look at what could be wrong such as this new theory made by this creationist. I don’t think creationists have found a good explanation of the flood yet, but the evidences show that the flood happened. (there are equivalent stratas of dirt all around the earth with land fossils in the stratas). How can it be that there are so many land animals that went in the water to die and how is it that stratas are similar everywhere if they were not formed in the same catastrophe which is best explained by a global flood (constant deposition in millions of years is pretty stupid since stratas would be smaller and more uniform). Anyway, why are we arguing on that since trees have been found passing through many layers of rock? I’m asking you again; how many evidences do you need to believe that a global flood did happen?

  17. ant bourdon October 5, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Geno;
    You are right on many things. I’m not convinced by the hydroplate theory. But I’m only arguing that if he is wrong in some things, he may be right in other things.
    1 You were asking for a sign of a global flood. Well, we are pretty aware that the Grand Canyon was eroded but the sides of the Canyon is higher near the ocean than at it beginning. This means there must have been a gigantic lake there. Also, the size of the canyon going on top from large to small at the bottom shows that there was more debit, then less until it ran out of water. This does shows that the lake was getting smaller and smaller. It could not have been formed in millions of years because the debit would not have been greater on top than at the bottom since the debit would have come mostly from rain (it doesn’t give you more water to form the debit if you have a big lake. The territory is what gives you the debit).
    Another sign of a global flood is the large amount of land fossils. Land animals do not die in lakes (and every layers on the earth are formed in the water).
    Scientists have discovered many other signs of global erosion, but they usually explain it by the melting of the ice after the glaciation era. This may be accepted in northern regions even if it is unbelievable, but what to do with southern regions.

    2 a source for the water: the oceans

    3 a place for the water to go after the flood: the ocean

    The only thing to explain is how could this happen.

  18. Dale Evjen October 5, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Geno:

    The ‘impact theory’ doesn’t pan out too good!

    Here is the last portion of the article:

    Problems for giant impact origin of moon
    by Michael J. Oard

    In spite of a growing consensus in favor of the Giant Impact Hypothesis, some workers remain sceptical of the hypothesis on both dynamical and geochemical grounds. Ruzicka, Snyder and Taylor reviewed the geochemical data, especially the diagnostic elements of Ni, Co, Cr,
    V, and Mn. These elements have been used to argue in favor of the Giant Impact Hypothesis, but these researchers, after reviewing observed data from the moon and meteorites, conclude that there is no strong geochemical support for either the Giant Impact or Impact triggered
    Fission hypotheses. Much of the geochemical support for the hypothesis
    was based on genitive models, which of course are simplified with too
    few variables. It is the observed data that call these hypotheses into question. The researchers also add that the reason the Giant Impact Hypothesis has become popular lately is because other hypotheses don’t work: “This [hypothesis] has arisen not so much because of the merits of [its] theory as because of the apparent dynamical or geochemical shortcomings of other theories”

    Planetary scientists won’t give up. They must have a naturalistic hypothesis for all origins, including the moon’s, so will believe almost any hypothesis to fill the void. In regard to the moon and despite a long history of theorizing, “The origin of the Moon is still unresolved.” The idea that the
    moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its resent orbit some 6,000 years ago is still the most reasonable explanation for its origin.

    Search for ‘impact origin’ at creation.com to see full text with references.

    Like I said the evolutionists haven’t a clue how the moon could have been formed by naturalistic processes.

    It is interesting that most of the problems with naturalistic formation of the solar system like Venus rotating retrograde, Uranus rotating on its side, Venus not having a moon etc. are answered with some sort of collision scenario causing the irregularity (Miranda an unusual-looking moon of Uranus is explained using twelve collisions). Evolutionist’s models boil down to a bunch of just-so stories and self-contradictory assertions because they are basing their ideas on ‘science fiction’.

    The only ‘story’ that fits is recorded Genesis.

  19. Gary Hendricks October 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Sorry Ant…but you silly statement that believing in a young Earth based on “observation” is nothing but pure deception through and through. The scientific community observes…you fantasize.

    You stated – “but I’m certain that we can’t believe in millions of years because for example there is not a lot of dust on the moon”

    Surely you can’t be serious? You know that kindergarten theory has been resoundingly debunked time and time again and yet you trumpet such notions as “proofs”. Why do you keep asking for evidences when it is so clear that you deny the entire body of scientific knowledge and research? How can you possibly say that to even keep requesting such evidence is anything other than pure dishonesty? All the while you keep referring to this evidence that supports your theories as if they actually exist someplace besides the minds of scientific illiterates! It is one thing to be deceived but quite another to be willfully ignorant.

    “Not a lot of dust on the moon”?

    Come one…at least try to educate yourself just a little!!!

  20. ant bourdon October 5, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Geno;
    how can you say that the moon could have been formed by an impact between a celestial object and the earth when there is a small amount of dust on the moon. If the moon was formed in a recent past by an impact, the energy released would have killed all of earth’s inhabitant the same way you said the flood would do. If it was formed millions or billions of years ago, then why is it recovered by a so small amount of dust?

  21. ant bourdon October 5, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    “Geno asks:
    A question for you; Could God have created the universe in 13.7 billion years with no more effort than a single thought if He had wanted to do it that way?”

    You are right. Both ways are possible for God. The only problem would be to find a reason God would have to make animals kill each others for nothing during millions of years. We could find an answer to that I’m pretty sure, but I think your argument shows us that we shouldn’t argue basing ourselves on religion, but only on SCIENCE. This is why I’m asking evolutionists to stop citing the Bible to make arguments. We do not base our rational thoughts on the Bible. The Bible can only propose insights, but it does not put any weight to an argument in front of someone who doesn’t believe it. So, we should use what every man has in common: reason. Thank you for pointing that out.

  22. Julie Collins October 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    this is very good and logical scientific observations. and i agree with hovinds conclusion. if the moon, which has no tectonic movements, and should have died out like mars and mercury did “billions of years ago” (unprovable timeline), than why is the moon still shrinking today? my conclusion is that the moon is NOT “billions of years old” but actually MUCH younger.

  23. Gary Hendricks October 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Julie said – “this is very good and logical scientific observations. and i agree with hovinds conclusion. if the moon, which has no tectonic movements, and should have died out like mars and mercury did “billions of years ago” (unprovable timeline), than why is the moon still shrinking today? my conclusion is that the moon is NOT “billions of years old” but actually MUCH younger.”

    Well…I guess it is settled then. LOL

  24. ant bourdon October 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Sorry Gary;
    You are right. I verified better sources and the moon dust argument can’t be used as proof of a young earth. But it doesn’t contradict it either so, we are just going to drop it.
    But Gary;
    If you are so bright to say there is a body of evidence that proves evolution, just show us one proof of it. You may be right on that particular thing I wrote, but why do you think you’ve won the fight right away? Just calm down and be rational. You’ve won nothing. You’ve shown us zero proof against a young earth creation and you’ve shown zero proof for evolution. Until now you’ve just contradicted me on some arguments and you’ve dropped the ones you couldn’t answer. Come on, who’s talking about dishonesty?

  25. Gary Hendricks October 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Congratulations Ant, you have just done something very few young Earthers are capable of…admitting you made a mistake. there may be hope for you after all. Now do some honest research into all of the other young earth “proofs” and you will find they are nothing but a house of cards that long ago collapsed.

    But let me clarify a couple of things.

    1. I have never stated anything about evolution. My argument has been all along that there is evidence against a young earth and a young universe in the same way there is evidence against a flat and stationary earth. I have never argued for or against evolution.

    2. I have never dropped any arguments that you think I could not answer. In fact I challenged anyone to show me a scientific “proof” of a young earth and I would respond. I still will. In fact I did concerning geologic columns.

    3. I never claimed to have won anything.

    4. The continued cries of “zero proof” cannot be called anything but outright dishonesty for the reasons I have already stated. Since the overwhelming consensus among the “educated” scientific community agrees with me that the universe and the earth are billions, not thousands” of years old the burden of proof is clearly upon your group of uneducated radical zealots who, by the way, are clearly verging on cult status. In fact I am thinking you may already be there.

    In fact every one of Dr. (and I use the term Dr VERY loosely) Hovind’s 30 proofs of a young earth have been debunked just as soundly as the moon dust one. Oh and one final thing; when you tell me I need to “calm down” that is what we call projecting.

  26. Geno Castagnoli October 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    ant bourdon wrote:
    (with regard to Brown)
    I’m not convinced by the hydroplate theory. But I’m only arguing that if he is wrong in some things, he may be right in other things.
    ***********
    Geno replies:
    That may be true, but if Brown’s wrong on the things I’m pointing out, it wouldn’t matter if he’s right in other things…. we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.

    Ant wrote:
    1 You were asking for a sign of a global flood.
    ***************
    Geno replies:
    No, I asked for the identified global flood layer.

    Ant wrote:
    Another sign of a global flood is the large amount of land fossils. Land animals do not die in lakes (and every layers on the earth are formed in the water).
    ***********
    Geno replies:
    How about the places where alternating layers of land fossils and marine fossils exist? Doesn’t that pretty much rule out a single flood event?

    Ant wrote:
    2 a source for the water: the oceans
    **************
    Geno replies:
    Except you have no mechanism to get the oceans to cover the land without adding a LOT of water to them. Brown’s model doesn’t work.

    The “Vapor Canopy” model doesn’t work. Dr. Larry Vardiman at ICR has been trying to get that one to work for 25 years and the best he can do is a half-meter of precipitable water vapor without getting a greenhouse effect that increases the temperature of the atmosphere above the boiling point of water…. and he doesn’t even begin to deal with the latent heat of condensation.

    Dr. John Baumgardner’s “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” is much better than Brown’s model. It only releases enough energy to boil off the oceans 3 times. But it does expose the entire Atlantic Basin as molten magma over a period of only a few weeks.

    Any form of space bombardment quickly runs into the heat problems from atmospheric friction I’ve already mentioned with regard to Brown’s model.

    Ant wrote:
    3 a place for the water to go after the flood: the ocean
    ***********
    Geno replies:
    The problem here is that normally floods end when the water runs off to lower elevations. In the case of a global flood, all the lower elevations are already full of water and there is no place for it to go.

    Ant wrote:
    The only thing to explain is how could this happen.
    ***********
    Geno replies:
    You’re jumping the gun here…. the first thing is to show it DID happen.

  27. Geno Castagnoli October 5, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Dale Evjen wrote:
    The “impact theory” doesn’t pan out too good!

    Here is the last portion of the article:

    Problems for “giant impact” origin of moon
    by Michael J. Oard
    **********
    Geno replies:
    I could reference you to a half dozen or more professional peer reviewed papers by astronomers detailing why it does pan out.
    **********

    Dale quotes:
    “In spite of a growing consensus in favor of the Giant Impact Hypothesis, some workers remain sceptical of the hypothesis…..”
    **********
    Geno comments:
    Right…. the consensus in favor of the impact theory and SOME are skeptical. So what? That’s fairly typical of scientific theories.
    ***********

    Dale quotes:
    “….. The researchers also add that the reason the Giant Impact Hypothesis has become popular lately is because other hypotheses don’t work: This [hypothesis] has arisen not so much because of the merits of [its] theory as because of the apparent dynamical or geochemical shortcomings of other theories ”
    ************
    Geno comments:
    “Lately” of course being the last 30-40 years.
    **********

    Dale quotes:
    “Planetary scientists won’t give up. They must have a naturalistic hypothesis for all origins, including the moon’s,….”
    **********
    Geno comments:
    We call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences for a reason. By it’s very nature ALL of science works with naturalistic hypotheses. Those are the only ones that can be tested using the scientific method. I’ve been asking creationists for years to provide me with just one test for supernatural invervention that is available to science.

    One of the things science relies on is the “Newtonian synthesis” which basically holds that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places. Should God decide to suspend the natural laws and perform a miracle, science would be unable to detect it.
    ********

    Dale quotes:
    “The idea that the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its resent orbit some 6,000 years ago is still the most reasonable explanation for its origin.”
    ************
    Geno comments:
    And just how would that be tested using the scientific method? How can that be resolved with multiple radioisotope tests using multiple methods that indicate an age of around 4.5 billion years?

    For that matter, since we’re touching on astronomy…. how can I walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years)? The most distant object I should be able to see in a 6,000 year old universe would be 6,000 light years from us.
    ********

    Dale comments:
    Search for impact origin at creation.com to see full text with references.
    **************
    Geno comments:
    I hope you’ll understand if I prefer to get my science from sources who make at least some attempt to approach the evidence objectively. Creation.com openly declares their refusal to do so. At their “what we believe” page, they state (Paragraph D-6):
    “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. ”

    So, they have ruled evidence in conflict with their interpretation of Scripture to be invalid, by definition, before they have even examined it. Of course, they forget their interpretation of Scripture is also done “by fallible people”.

    Now, if you want to get science from objective sources who have no pre-declared agenda/bias, I suggest you try “scirus.com” or the Harvard abstract search function. (Sorry, I’d give you the link, but list rules prohibit it.)
    ***********

    Dale comments:
    Like I said the evolutionists haven’t a clue how the moon could have been formed by naturalistic processes.
    *************
    Geno replies:
    Like I said, and the citation presented by you confirms, the consensus of astronomers says otherwise.
    ******

    Dale writes:
    It is interesting that most of the problems with naturalistic formation of the solar system like Venus rotating retrograde, Uranus rotating on its side, Venus not having a moon etc. are answered with some sort of collision scenario causing the irregularity (Miranda an unusual-looking moon of Uranus is explained using twelve collisions).
    ********
    Geno comments:
    You don’t think the fact we have actually seen collisions take place and have abundant evidence they have been relatively frequent might have something to do with that do you? If you want to see a really neat impact crater, you should go the “Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive” and look up Saturn’s moon Mimas.
    *******

    Dale writes:
    Evolutionist’s models boil down to a bunch of just-so stories and self-contradictory assertions because they are basing their ideas on “science fiction”.
    **********
    Geno replies:
    The “fiction” here is claiming creation “science” to be scientific at all. Scientists make an effort to approach evidence objectively. I’ve seen no trace of that in any of the creation “science” ministries as most, if not all, of them have some statement similar to the one at creation.com
    ******

    Dale writes:
    The only “story” that fits is recorded Genesis.
    *******
    Geno comments:
    Except for hundreds of discrepencies with direct, observational, empirical evidence.

    Note: I expect this blog entry to be closed out soon, so this may be my last opportunity to post on these matters until the subject comes up again.

  28. Mark James October 6, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    Hi Gary,

    We can agree on two points it would seem:

    1. God could have created the universe and everything in it in 6 nanoseconds “if He had wanted to do it that way”, and
    2.He could have created a flat and stationary Earth with the Universe revolving around it if He had wanted to.

    I’ll even agree with Geno that He could have created the universe in 13.7 billion years with no more effort than a single thought. The truth is no-one can say with absolute certainty how the universe was formed because none of us was there when it happened. All I can tell you is what I believe, which is all any one of us can do.

    But your characterization of me is way off beam. I have a post-graduate degree in organic chemistry and a science teacher for a mother. I was taught evolution and an old earth from an early age right through to university and I swallowed it all hook, line and sinker. When I became a Christian I decided to free myself from the indoctrination and investigate the subject for myself and I found that I was going to have to ignore a lot of very compelling evidence if I was to continue to believe what I had been taught. You speak of pride and you are right, I had to swallow a whole heap of it to admit that I had been wrong for all those years.

    I have since studied that Bible and found that God put in place some remarkable systems to protect the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. So remarkable are these protections that I am left with no other option than to believe that Bible, in the original language, is exactly as He intended it to be and on this basis I have made the decision to take the Bible as my source of absolute truth. Am I right? Well, obviously you don’t think I am. Am I ignorant? That’s not for you to judge.