Difference between revisions of "The Moon"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:39, 30 May 2014
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
Fact #1
The origin of the moon is not a known fact, and the argument about its origin still rages among scientists. Some believe it came from the earth's crust (or mantle), and others, that it was a space object captured by the earth's gravity. Others believe that it formed as a result of the collision between a planetary body and the earth. [1]
Fact #2
If the moon was 3 billion years old, then there should be a layer of dust on its surface at least 50m deep. The landing of space craft on the moon has shown the dust layer to be very small, indicating that the age of the moon is nowhere near this multi billion figure. Robert T. Dixon "Dynamic Astronomy", Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1971 p:149; John W. Salisbury & Peter Glaser (eds) "The Lunar Surface Layer", Academic Press: New York, 1964; Royal Astronomical Society of London: Monthly Notices, Vol. 115, 1955 p:598-599; G.S. Hawkings (ed.) "Meteor Orbits and Dust, [2]
Fact #3
There is a 30,000 trillion (30x1015) tonne gravitational force between earth and the moon. The land and sea bulges on the earth in a slightly delayed response to the moon's gravitational field, causing a slightly forward 'pull' on the moon. This causes the moon to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth, at a measured rate today of 4 cm per year. Using the appropriate differential equation which takes into account that the gravitational force varies with the distance of the moon from Earth, a date can be calculated that indicates when the moon was supposed to be part of Earth. The calculated maximum ceiling date is 1.4 billion years. This differs greatly from the 3 billion years of evolutionary time currently assigned to our earth-moon system. [3]
Fact #4
It is a recognised fact that glass slowly flows out of shape over hundreds of years. This is true of all solids, including rock. Most scientists believe the moon to be 3 billion years old, but a study of the basaltic rocks brought back from the moon by the Apollo astronauts rules out the age of lunar craters being anything over a million years old. The viscosity or flow rate used by scientists reveals that the craters could not have lasted for 3-4 billion years. If the upper limits of flow rates are used, the craters cannot be more than a few thousand years old. [4]
Fact #5
Reports to the Fourth Lunar Science Conference included information that the moon has relatively abundant amounts of the short-lived radioisotopes Uranium-236 and Thorium-230. If the moon was billions of years old, as evolution demands, these isotopes would have long since decayed and disappeared. Their presence today indicates a young age for the moon. R.L. Wysong, "The Creation-Evolution Controversy", [5]
Fact #6
Analysis of data collected from the 2 month orbit of the spacecraft Clementine around the moon suggests that it is not a 4 billion year old cold object. It is believed from the analysis that the moon may have a molten core, but more tests will be required to confirm this. A molten core is inconsistent with long-age evolutionary development. Science, Vol. 264, 1994 p:1666-1667. [6]
Fact #7
"..... the moon is still active geologically. It is not the cold, dead body that the pre-space-age theories had depicted. Yet, it should be cold and dead if it is indeed billions of years old." Written by John Whitcomb and Donald DeYoung in "The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance", [7]
References
- ↑ The Sydney Morning Herald, October 20, 1990 p:23
- ↑ Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics" (vol. 2), Smithsonian Institute and NASA: Washington DC., 1976; Scientific American, Vol. 202, 1960 p:132
- ↑ Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1991 p:43
- ↑ Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1983 p:105-108
- ↑ Inquiry Press: Midlands (Mississippi), 1976 p: p:177-178
- ↑ Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1995 p:5
- ↑ BMH Books: Winona Lakes (Indiana), 1978 p:126