Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Carbon dating

2007-11-24T01:25:03Z

Primeq: Poor "reference"

== Huge errors on this page ==

Firstly, there is an claim that carbon dating had wrongly measured the age of some carbonate rocks, oil etc. Ofc it has, because no one in their right minds and knowing even the basics of carbon dating would try to measure those with this method... Offcourse the result is wrong, it's like saying one was trying to measure weight with measuring tape. The whole concept of giving false measurements as a "proof" that the method dosen't work is ridiculous. Who knows how many measuring errors has happened with measuring tape, but no one is claimin that because person "A" measured the lenght of an tree wrong using a measuring tape, that the measuring tapes arent reliable. Im deleting that whole section. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: This is factual and informative information. Why censor it? The only reason that "no one in their [sic] right minds ... would try to measure those with this method" is because of significant limitations in carbon dating, which is precisely the point. The math alone does not predict that dating rocks and oil should be as unreliable as the results show.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::So you really think there should be an collection of wrong results when trying to measure weight with measuring tape on the pages descriping the measuring tape? Just to prove that the measuring tape is limited on measuring the lenght? You can't measure things such as rocks, oil etc with carbon dating, from the basic reason that the carbon in it is from petroleum. So no one who knows anything about carbon dating would never even try that. And what do you have to say about the general measuring errors? Do you really think that we should now start to post diffrent wrong reasult people have gotten when they where using a volt meter, measuring tape or scales? That makes no sense at all, as said before, it would be ridiculous and would really like to hear why we should do this. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Changing decay rates==

Further corrections i would like to make are allso removing the following sentences: "First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time." Indeed, for this to happen laws of physics would have needed to change. And to claim that... Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments? Firstly, for it to be any help for the young earth creationists, it would have needed to happen during the last 10 000 years. And the laws of physics to change so much that it would change the half time of C-14 atom... Oh boy. I see no place for claim like this on encyclopedia. There is no evidence of anything like this ever happening, and even the idea of this is so strange to modern science that it's once again just absurd to offer that as an excuse for considering carbon dating not to be valid. If this excuse is accepted here, it can be used on every other scientific article here. They all rely on the fact that laws of physics arent changing around. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:You're "speechless" about a position of Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac and many physicists today??? Maybe what you meant to say is that you've never heard this. OK, most people (including physics majors) don't hear about this. But, please, let's be at least a little open-minded. I've updated the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::First i would like to quote myself: "Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" You are claiming that Nobel Laurete Paul Dirac claimed so? It has been long known that for example at the time of the big bang, when scientists presume that the laws of physics where allso born, there might have been some changes. But the key here is that for some one to claim that the laws of physics would have changed so much on earth in so reasent history that the halftime of C-14 atom would have been cut down to 1/5th or something around that is just beyond what any scientist would ever claim. It would mean catastroph to other things here. And if claim like that would be accepted here to undermine the Carbon dating, it could, as said earlyer be used to undermine any scientific findings. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: You've gone from being "speechless" to saying "it has long [been] known." I'm only interested in an open-minded discussion here. If your mind is made up, and you'll treat anything contrary to your opinion with derision, then this is not productive for you or me. We're both better off working on other entries.

: If the C-14 decay rate varies proportionately with the age of the universe, and if that age is, say 5,000 years rather than 10 billion years, then obviously the C-14 decay rate could have been many orders of magnitude larger a thousand years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::It would offcourse help, if one would read why i was speechless, ill quote myself the thirth time: "im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" But i do think you allready read that, and are just trying not to answer the questions itself. Those questions being. If something like that would have happened in the last 10 000 years, how would anything have survived it? If this is valid argument here, why can't it be used to question everything else in science? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::: There is a circularity in your line of reasoning. You concede the decay rates may have changed, but implicity use the current decay rate to estimate the age of the universe.

::: Once one concedes that the decay rates may be declining, as one must, then the rates cannot be used to infer the age of the universe. If the universe is 5000 years old, then the decay rate first declined rapidly thousands of years ago. The half-life may have only been 100 years at the time of Christ. I don't see how such a half-life would make any difference to the sustenance of life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, there is no evidence that decay rates would be declining, as said, that would brake the laws of physics as we know them. Some scientist have speculated that in some special circustamses, like during the very first moments of Big bang those laws might have been under a change, other than that, its all highly speculative talk around fine-structure constant and the changing of the four fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. None of this has ever been proven to happen and for it to happen in a scale that would change the decay rates enough to make earth 6000 years old... One thing tho is "sure" if that would have happened, and the half time of C-14 had changed enought that it would make any diffrence in age measurements, it would have caused catastrohic consequenses for all life on earth. Mayby even for the whole universe. Simple reason for this is that you cant only change the half time of C-14 it would be more wide spread. This kind of change in laws of physics would make the existing unstable nucleids less stable, and will also make currently stable nucleids unstable. Which would be very very '''very''' bad thing. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

While i remember, i would like to allso point out that the discussion about the "wrongly measured" Carbon rock/oil samples has no conclusion yet. If there is nothing you would like to add to it, i really think those examples should be removed on the basis off what i said on the discussion at the top of the page. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

For decay rates to change, you'd have to drastically change some of the laws of physics and/or the rest mass of several types of subatomic particles, if this were to happen, chances are entire solar systems will disintegrate and some chemical compounds would not be stable anymore, it is likely something as complicated as carbon based live would die: meaning ALL carbon based life in the universe.

Dirac's ideas about gravitation are highly speculative, highly criticized and deal only with small changes over billions of years, so minute they wouldn't even be detectable over the course of 60,000 years.

Speculation about changing laws of physics are a desperate attempt at creating confusion among those who have accepted evolution to be true.
They were inserted here by the same person who argued that there was no way to figure out the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over hundreds of thousands of years (there are, and carbon dating is limited to 60,000 years anyway) in an attempt to discredit carbon dating.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::That's really an answer here? Changing laws of physics? C'mon.... Will gravity be back tomorrow? I sure hope so. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== the 50,000 year mark ==

<s>The sentence "For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old" is factually incorrect. After 50,000 years carbon-14 would have undergone over 8 half-lives and essentially there rate of change has reached a screeching halt. It is the result of both the small amout of carbon-14 and the length of the half-life that prevent dating back to 50,000 years. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)</s> This was addressed in the time I wrote the comment.

== Creationwiki ==

I notice that one of the references used to support some of the stronger claims on this page is Creationwiki. Is that really a good source? Does it really belong here? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, where else can you get references in support of creationism?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Feel free to find more neutral sites. I'll do it myself eventually. Nothing there is controversial. The first criticism of it, in fact, was that it was too obvious to include.

: As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything. Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time. I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too. Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant. Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life? None can exist without that fundamental decay rate? Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I explained everything didn't I? Decay rates depend on rest-masses of subatomic particles among other things, these same rest-masses also determine which atomic particles and which chemical bonds can exist: imagine what would happen if all the nuclei in the universe would disintegrate...

I also explained Dirac's ideas were about minute changes over billions of years.

Do I have to explain myself again, or should I let a lawyer lecture me about Dirac's theories?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Yeah, you do have to lecture me if you think the laws of physics, including the decay rate for C-14, has never changed. And after you lecture me, lecture every physicist who ever studied the Big Bang, and all their students. And then lecture every one who has ever studied [[Karl Popper]] and understands what science is. And then nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, the source you cites suggests that one law of physics has changed. However, Middle Man et al are right about how sweeping a change on the half life of carbon would be. In science, every piece interlocks with the other, such that a change to one implies a great change to the other. SO, changing the half-life of carbon to change would imply a change in the base atomic structure of carbon, which would prevent the ability of carbon to bond as readily as it does, which would destroy the reason that makes carbon the inherent building block of life. You can't just say "the laws of physics changed" without realizing the full extent of what you're saying - you're saying that the very nature of life, and the very structure of atoms, has changed within the past 6000 years. And I'm sure you realize that Karl Popper cuts ''against'' you - your little "theory" is unfalsifiable, aside from being absurd for the reasons stated above.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::I implemented those changes, since the challenges had been posed & unanswered in a while.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It was my rebuttal that went unanswered.

::: There is no reason or evidence to think that life cannot function with a shorter half-life for C-14. Your comments reflect nothing more than a view that the world has to be a way that you believe it to be. More open-mindedness is expected of editors on this site. Yes, C-14 half's life may have been different, just as scientists are suggesting that many other aspects of the laws of physics were also different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you misunderstand. For carbon's half life isn't just a variable that gets changed like you change the value of X in algebra. Rather, it depends on subatomic masses of particles. So, to change C-14's half life, you'd have to change subatomic mass numbers. But if you change subatomic mass numbers, carbon can't bond as easily as it does, and life can't exist. I'm not saying "the world has to be my way" just because I like it that way - I'm saying "the world has to be my way" because otherwise there would be no life on earth. Finally, saying one law of physics might change doesn't mean that they're all up for grabs! And seriously, you're lecturing ''me'' on closed-mindedness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I'm sorry, but it is close-minded to insist that life can only exist a certain way. You won't find a single credible scientist to make such a close-minded claim. Be more open-minded and admit the obvious: it's possible that life could have existed with different half-lives for C-14 and other differences as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I'm telling you it's not. Part of the miracle of life in the universe is that it can only exist in a slim number of circumstances. Changing C-14 would change the whole thing. To analogize, it would not be "closed minded" to say that, if the charge of the electron were slightly larger or slightly less, life would cease to exist - it's just true (Hawking, ''Brief History of time''). Do ''you'' have a cite supporting the idea that changing C-14 would ''not'' prohibit life from forming? I ask because mainstream science disagrees with you, and before making such an outrageous claim, I'm '''''sure''''' you must've done some research. If your whole argument depends on me being "closed-minded," and yet you refuse to look up the science on it, I think it's fairly clear who's won.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Please find a source that specifically speaks to a change of the half life of Carbon-14 ''within the past 6000 years''. Your article discussing change in an unrelated matter of physics over billions of years just doesn't cut it. Then, discuss it here, and we'll include it after it's been fully discussed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== From radiocarbon dating ==

This is from an older entry entitled "radiocarbon dating". Please identify any information here that you feel might improve this entry. A redirect from radiocarbon dating is being inserted to send it to "carbon dating"

'''Radiocarbon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 present.

The method is based on the fact that the carbon-12 [[isotope]] of carbon is more stable, and therefore more common, than the [[radioactivity | radioactive]] carbon-14 isotope. Most of the carbon in the earth is buried deep underground, where any carbon-14 [[radioactive decay | decays]], leaving behind carbon-12. Nitrogen-14 atoms in the stratosphere are often struck by neutrons, converting them to carbon-14 atoms. But carbon-14 in the atmosphere mixes with ordinary carbon-12 and finds it way into all living creatures. Therefore the concentration of carbon-14 is higher in living creatures and in the atmosphere than it is in dead or buried forms of carbon.

Thus, archaeologists use radiocarbon dating to measure the age of dead bodies, fossils, and burnt wood. If the concentration of carbon-14 is almost as high as in the atmosphere, then the specimen was recently alive. If it is much lower, then the specimen has been dead a long time.
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the time since death depends on the the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and also on the [[half-life]] of carbon-14 (the time it takes for half the carbon-14 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of carbon-14 is commonly given as 5730 ± 40 years; however a global standard half-life of 5568 ± 30 years is also often employed.

Obviously, this formula depends on the atmosphere remaining roughly constant in its composition over time. Insofar as the natural level and distribution of carbon-14 varies over time, due to to atmospheric disturbances, the formula will need to be adjusted. For example, in the last few decades, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere has increased the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. To account for this, standard calibration curves are used to take account of known chronological fluctuations, and results can be obtained which are rarely more than 700 years out.

Other isotopes with longer half-lives can also be used to date objects. However, each method has its own drawbacks.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] point out that the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 would have been affected by the [[Great Flood|global flood]], as the flood buried massive quantities of living things,<ref>Batten 2007, p. 71.</ref> thus invalidating dating results from that era as secular science does not allow for this. As such dating results ''presume'' that there was no flood, the resulting dates are not ''proof'' that there was no flood, as anti-creationists often charge.

: The entire thing is important...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==See also==

[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]

== Bibliography ==

* Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).
*Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).

* Batten, Don et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf ''What about carbon dating?''], Chapter 4 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', Creation Book Publishers, 2007, ISBN 978-0949906625.

== Notes ==
<references />

== I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting. ==

Please don't troll, and tell me why you reverted. The changes only made your science less misleading and wrong. As stated above...
#You give no source for the "carbon dating can only prove which is older."
#The carbon content of the atmosphere can be discerned by ice cores.
#Changing the C-14 half-life would require changing all of atomic physics in a very bad way.
#Carbon dating obviously doesn't work on oil, et al, and that shouldn't be portrayed as a "flaw."

I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference #2==
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:To be honest, I'm really skeptical. If Dirac were right, he'd be the winner of a second Nobel Prize. And people usually listen to Nobel Prize winners. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Carbon dating verified through other methods ==

How do you explain the fact that carbon dating methods were verified through many other methods of dating? When Libby developed the method he checked his results using verified historical records pertaining to the life of Zoser during the thrid dynasty. Carbon dating has also been proven effective through comparing results from other unrelated aging methods such as U/T dating, Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Dendrochronology, and Potassium-Argon dating. I have personally tested the age of a buried hearth pit using carbon dating and OSL, and the results were he same. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 16:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Poor "reference" ==

Reference stated as support for the "older than 50,000 years, carbon-dating is bad" is <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html]</ref>

If you review that posting, it's sourced from someone's comment - not really good science. I think someone needs to volunteer to research the original Faure text on geochemistry

Talk:Moon

2007-11-24T00:38:56Z

Primeq: /* Primeq's edits */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted.

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Moon

2007-11-23T23:30:08Z

Primeq: /* Design attributes of the Moon */

[[image:Moon2.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The Moon, age 21 days]]
The '''Moon''' is a natural [[satellite]] orbiting the [[Earth]] at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km).

==Design attributes of the Moon==
Unlike most planets in the solar system, [[Earth]] has only one moon, and it has several striking characteristics:

{|
|-valign="top"
|1.
|The Moon appears to have the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal solar eclipses. The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero.
|-valign="top"
|2.
|The Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. [[Atheistic]] explanations rely on [[tidal locking]], suggesting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth.<ref>The same theory suggested that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. Mercury's tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.</ref> In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the [[Earth]] on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.<ref>http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM</ref>
|-valign="top"
|3.
|[[Atheistic]] theories of the [[origin of the Moon]], widely taught for decades, have been proven false.<ref>Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref> Lacking any other [[atheistic]] alternatives, some scientists assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the iron-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref> This theory, however, is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively low levels of iron in the moon's crust. Additional tests fail to support the [[atheistic]] theory.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis]</ref>

Biblical history records the Moon being created on the fourth day of [[Creation Week|creation week]], along with the Sun.
|-valign="top"
|4.
|The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html]</ref>. NASA also states that the moon is 4.6 billion years old <ref>[http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-15-2.html]</ref>; this creates difficulties since it implies that mankind has been present for very close to 4.6 billion years. How can this have been, since following the Bible from day 4 (moon creation), and counting generations from Adam/Eve, Cain etc., would require the bible to be much, much longer than the 6,000 years implied by creation-theory. Either we use NASA 'facts' (all of them), and deal with inconsistencies like this, or we strike any and all references to NASA. Do we put our faith in "science", or God? Cherry-picking from NASA only opens us up to accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
[http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html]</ref>.
The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.<ref name="js">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/764/ The moon: the light that rules the night], ''Creation'' 20(4):36–39, September 1998.</ref>
If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles.
However, the rate of recession would not have been constant, but would have been greater in the past, so that extrapolating backwards in time results in the moon being in contact with the earth 1.37 billion years ago,<ref name="js" /> seemingly (if the assumptions stated above are correct) contradicting the view of an [[Old Earth]] promoted by [[atheists]].
|}

== Background ==

Although the Moon is often described as revolving around the Earth, this is slightly inaccurate: the Earth and the Moon ''both'' revolve around their ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]]. The combined motion is like an athlete performing an [[Olympics| Olympic]] hammer throw: one object swings in a large circle, the other almost pivots around a fixed point but actually performs a small opposing circle of its own. <ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the [[Sun]] in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the [[science]] of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y'').

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. The Moon's rotation is locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

The phrase "''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

Due to a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion called ''libration,'' we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.

[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

  "I saw the new moon late yestreen 
    With the old moon in her arm; 
  And if we go to sea, master, 
    I fear we'll come to harm." 

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow [[crescent]]. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an [[astronaut]] standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snow-pack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

  Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
    The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
  The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
    Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

The months of the [[Islam|Muslim]] [[calendar]] are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in [[Pakistan]] and [[Jordan]], hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain precisely when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by [[astronomy|astronomical]] rules.

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]

== Notes and References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Moon

2007-11-23T23:27:44Z

Primeq: /*Do we need NASA references?*/

[[image:Moon2.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The Moon, age 21 days]]
The '''Moon''' is a natural [[satellite]] orbiting the [[Earth]] at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km).

==Design attributes of the Moon==
Unlike most planets in the solar system, [[Earth]] has only one moon, and it has several striking characteristics:

{|
|-valign="top"
|1.
|The Moon appears to have the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal solar eclipses. The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero.
|-valign="top"
|2.
|The Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. [[Atheistic]] explanations rely on [[tidal locking]], suggesting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth.<ref>The same theory suggested that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. Mercury's tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.</ref> In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the [[Earth]] on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.<ref>http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM</ref>
|-valign="top"
|3.
|[[Atheistic]] theories of the [[origin of the Moon]], widely taught for decades, have been proven false.<ref>Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref> Lacking any other [[atheistic]] alternatives, some scientists assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the iron-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref> This theory, however, is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively low levels of iron in the moon's crust. Additional tests fail to support the [[atheistic]] theory.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis]</ref>

Biblical history records the Moon being created on the fourth day of [[Creation Week|creation week]], along with the Sun.
|-valign="top"
|4.
|The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html]</ref>. NASA also states that the moon is 4.6 billion years old [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-15-2.html]; this creates difficulties since it implies that mankind has been present for cvery close to 4.6 billion years. How can this have been, since following the Bible from day 4 (moon creation), and counting generations from Adam/Eve, Cain etc., would require the bible to be much, much longer than the 6,000 years implied by creation-theory. Either we use NASA 'facts' (all of them), and deal with inconsistencies like this, or we strike any and all references to NASA. Do we put our faith in "science", or God? Cherry-picking from Nasa only opens us up to accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
[http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html]</ref>.
The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.<ref name="js">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/764/ The moon: the light that rules the night], ''Creation'' 20(4):36–39, September 1998.</ref>
If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles.
However, the rate of recession would not have been constant, but would have been greater in the past, so that extrapolating backwards in time results in the moon being in contact with the earth 1.37 billion years ago,<ref name="js" /> seemingly (if the assumptions stated above are correct) contradicting the view of an [[Old Earth]] promoted by [[atheists]].
|}

== Background ==

Although the Moon is often described as revolving around the Earth, this is slightly inaccurate: the Earth and the Moon ''both'' revolve around their ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]]. The combined motion is like an athlete performing an [[Olympics| Olympic]] hammer throw: one object swings in a large circle, the other almost pivots around a fixed point but actually performs a small opposing circle of its own. <ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the [[Sun]] in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the [[science]] of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y'').

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. The Moon's rotation is locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

The phrase "''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

Due to a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion called ''libration,'' we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.

[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

  "I saw the new moon late yestreen 
    With the old moon in her arm; 
  And if we go to sea, master, 
    I fear we'll come to harm." 

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow [[crescent]]. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an [[astronaut]] standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snow-pack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

  Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
    The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
  The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
    Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

The months of the [[Islam|Muslim]] [[calendar]] are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in [[Pakistan]] and [[Jordan]], hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain precisely when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by [[astronomy|astronomical]] rules.

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]

== Notes and References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]