Moon moving 2 cm.

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Micah Hewitt

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
zqa...@Prodigy.com


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to

Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...

It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
a foot in 15 years.
250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.


An odd one

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
in article: <6qbmsk$ien$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>
Roger Schlafly wrote:

you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about 32000
miles away!! imagine how bit it would be in the sky then!!


The trees have eyes and the birds sing the blues.


Boikat

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to

Micah Hewitt wrote:

> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> zqa...@Prodigy.com

It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a
constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.

Boikat


Thomas Paine

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
>zqa...@Prodigy.com
>

Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.

But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
change.

I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.


Gavin Tabor

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to

I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
when listening to this sort of drivel.

Gavin


--
Dr.Gavin Tabor
email : ga...@ic.ac.uk
home page : monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/gavin.html
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College,
London SW7 2BY


Tarjei Straume

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to

Gavin Tabor wrote:

> Thomas Paine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> >
> > Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
> > always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
> > They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
> > and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.
> >
> > But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
> > expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
> > change.
> >
> > I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
> > lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.
>
> I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
> when listening to this sort of drivel.

Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories about its
origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then separated; the other that
it has an external origin and somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.

I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the earth
would perhaps lend support to it?

Tarjei


Adam Noel Harris

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
:
:

:Micah Hewitt wrote:
:
:> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
:> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
:> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
:> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
:> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
:> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
:> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
:> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
:> zqa...@Prodigy.com
:
:It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a

:constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
:math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
:age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
:means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which

:comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
^^^^^^^
391,000 km.

-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E


jeremy howard todd

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> writes:
>Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
>theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
>earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
>somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.

>I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
>from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?

The moon's movement away from the earth is a consequence of
the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
(such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.

Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
"locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.

Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.

-jht
--
Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
========================================================= // \\
"M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,


David Johnston

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.

They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
anyway.


Amanda & Adam Crowl

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
Hi Group,

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.

It's not a simple linear progression - the closer they are together the greater
the energy loss. The problem with the Creationist model is it uses a very
simplified model of the Earth that is inconsistent with what we do know about
tides and their energy dissipation. When more realistic models of oceans and
continents are used what emerges is we're living in an epoch of higher energy
losses than the past, a kind of resonance between tides, the Moon's orbit and
the Earth's spin.

I've got a few references I can give, but I have to dig them up. Watch this
space.

Adam

Boikat

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to

Adam Noel Harris wrote:

> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> :
>

[snip]

> :means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
> :comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
> ^^^^^^^
> 391,000 km.
>

Doh!!! Still not a problem. :}

Henke Clan

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to


Growth lines in corals and mollusks also give a nice record of the lengths of
months and days on Earth since at least the Ordovician, which of course is related
to how far away the Moon was from the Earth over time and the speed of the Earth's
rotation over time. For example, 435 million years ago, there were 405 days/year
instead of 365.25. The number of days/month 435 million years ago was closer to
31. See Mintz, Leigh W., 1977, "Historical Geology, 2nd ed., p. 92-93. If "Flood
geology" was real, why would we expect a Pennsylvanian rugose coral to have more
daily growth lines/year than a Tertiary hexacoral?

Kevin


Steve Henderson

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
In article <35C9D4CD...@online.no>,

Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:
}
}
}Gavin Tabor wrote:
}
}> Thomas Paine wrote:
}> >
}> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt
<va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
}> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
}> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
}> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
}> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
}> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
}> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
}> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
}> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
}> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com

ICR discussion snipped for bandwidth

}Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
}about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
}separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
}its present orbit around the earth.
}I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
}earth would perhaps lend support to it?
}

}Tarjei
}
My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
(and molten) chunk that formed the moon.

Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)

Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.


may...@andrews.edu

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
In article <6qd2s6$381$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:

> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> writes:
> >Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
> >theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
> >earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
> >somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
>
> >I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
> >from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?
>
> The moon's movement away from the earth is a consequence of
> the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
> correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
> create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
> earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
> earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
> (such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
> can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
> momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
> this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
> the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
> complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.
>
> Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
> "locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
> rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
> same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
> planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.
>
> Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
> happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
> stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
> most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
> the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.

Another interesting thing about this whole issue is that it disproves young
earth creationism, although apparently the young earthers brought it up to do
just the opposite (since fossil evidence indicates that the day has been
lengthening for approximately the amount of time that radiometric data
suggest). The tidal-locking that you mentioned is also difficult to fit into
a young- universe model.

--vince

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Reyn

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
may...@andrews.edu wrote in message <6qe6mc$1ua$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>>
>> (like Pluto and its moon, Charon)

hmn... I thought Pluto wasn't a planet but just a very large ice dwarf.
Pluto shares that area of the solar system with many millions of ice clumps
ranging probably from a few feet in size to the size of Pluto. so Pluto and
Charon aren't planet and moon, but just two ice dwarfs on steroids.

-Reyn


Mike Noren

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
Replying to Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> :

: I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is

: moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.

True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
moon via tidal forces.

: If time was

: run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
: roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
: the old earth positition.

I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,
but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.
I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
probably were equally impressive.

Other than this, I can't really help you. Have you looked in the
talk.origins faq's? There should be something on this subject in
there.


Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 6664125
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007 "Nihil umquam facile"
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Bill Jefferys

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
At 8:21 AM -0400 8/7/98, Mike Noren wrote:
>Replying to Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> :

>I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,


>but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
>years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
>Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
>contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
>closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.

IIRC the year was about 400 days (meaning the Earth rotated about 10%
faster than now) in Devonian times. The Moon would have been
proportionately closer (of order 10% with a factor of order unity that I
am too lazy to calculate right now).

>I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
>occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!


>must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
>probably were equally impressive.

I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.

Bill

--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227


Mike Noren

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
Replying to bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) :

: >I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have


: >occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!
: >must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
: >probably were equally impressive.
:
: I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
: apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.

Arrgh! Yes, correct!

: Bill

John R Nickolls

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to

Steve Henderson wrote:

> In article <35C9D4CD...@online.no>,
> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:

<snip>

> }Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
> }about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
> }separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
> }its present orbit around the earth.
> }I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
> }earth would perhaps lend support to it?
> }

> }Tarjei
> }
> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> Enslaved, illogical, elate,
> He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
> To shake the iron hand of Fate
> Or match with Destiny for beers.
> An American (Rudyard Kipling)
>
> Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.

According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)

Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
to size, orbit etc.

Any good?


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls/Paratechnics
PO Box 931 Manurewa Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64-9-268 1743 Fax: +64-9-268 2376
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~nickolls

Tarjei Straume

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to

John R Nickolls wrote:

<previous dialogues snipped>

> According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely.

Not if the earth and the moon condensed from the same mass of hot gases and liquids
and their differences in density occurred after the separation.

> Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
> of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)

I don’t know why this should exclude the possibility that the earth and moon have
been one single body at some point.

> Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?

A less likely theory, but still a theory nevertheless. And it’s the only alternative
to the earth and moon having been one single mass.

> Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
> that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
> which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
> to size, orbit etc.
>
> Any good?

Well yes. I have never been a particular fan of Asimov (an arrogant
ultra-rationalist), but he obviously was on to some interesting ideas about the Big
Bang and the possible future destiny of the physical universe. And he may not have
been too far from the truth about the moon either.

Tarjei

John R Nickolls

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Thanks, Tarjei.

I can't necessarily explain it all, just passing on what I've come across. You're right
about Asimov having "a bit of an attitude", but he was a clever guy, and at least
approached his chosen subjects very systematically.

He speculates about a double planet:

"It is possible then, that there is an intermediate point between the situation of a
massive planet far distant from the Sun, which develops about a single core, with
numerous satellites formed, and that of a small planet near the Sun which develops about
a single core with no satellites? Can there be a boundary condition, so to speak, in
which there is condensation about two major cores so that a double planet is formed?
Maybe Earth just hit the edge of the permissible mass and distance; a little too
small, a little too close. Perhaps if it were better situated the two halves of the
double planet would have been more of a size. Perhaps both might have had atmospheres
and oceans and - life. perhaps in other stellar systems with a double planet, a greater
equality is more ususal.
What a shame if we have missed that...
Or, maybe (who knows), what luck!"

By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in fact
artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll keep quiet.

Regards,

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls


Bill Jefferys

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
At 5:52 PM -0400 8/7/98, John R Nickolls wrote:

>Steve Henderson wrote:
>> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
>> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
>> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.

[This is the Giant Impact theory.]

>According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of

>the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to


>Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
>satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
>the Ecliptic.)

The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.

>Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
>from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?

Capture theory is now generally disregarded.

>Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)

Asimov is way out of date.

Bill
----

John R Nickolls

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to

Bill Jefferys wrote:

> At 5:52 PM -0400 8/7/98, John R Nickolls wrote:
> >Steve Henderson wrote:
> >> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> >> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> >> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> [This is the Giant Impact theory.]
>
> >According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> >the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> >Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
> >satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
> >the Ecliptic.)
>
> The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
> explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
> plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
> Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
> equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
> is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.
>
> >Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> >from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
>
> Capture theory is now generally disregarded.
>
> >Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)
>
> Asimov is way out of date.
>
> Bill

Thanks Bill, I learned something there.

Reyn

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
John R Nickolls wrote in message <35CCAC3D...@bigfoot.com>...

>
>By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in
fact
>artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll
keep quiet.


this sounds so weird that I really want to know about that theory. fire
away!

-Reyn


bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <35d2d8ae...@news.su.se>,

michae...@nrm.se (Mike Noren) wrote:
> Replying to Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> :
>
> : I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> : moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.
>
> True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
> somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
> moon via tidal forces.
>
> : If time was
> : run backward, it would infer ...

imply


...

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <6qbmsk$ien$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,

"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was

> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.

a linear extrapolation is inappropriate here.

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <199808060834...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

anod...@aol.com (An odd one) wrote:
> in article: <6qbmsk$ien$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> >Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> >> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >>zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> >It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> >is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> >The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> >in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> >a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> >The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> >
> you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about
32000
> miles away!!

references please

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <35CA19...@telusplanet.net>,

David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> > It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
>
> They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
> they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> anyway.

"they" do know. Roger doesn't.

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <6qciuv$f9$2...@208.231.48.116>,

ill...@nonsense.com (Thom Ass Pain) wrote:
> In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
>
> Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
> always constant;

Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.


...

She rings like a bell through the night
And wouldn't you love to love her?

She rules her life like a bird in flight
And who will be her lover?

name that tune

efo...@lib.drury.edu

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <35CA19...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > >
> > > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> > > It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > > a foot in 15 years.
> > > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> > They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
> > they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> > anyway.
>
> "they" do know.

Not all of them
" The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies
this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be
much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from
the earth."

>
> ...

Steve Sondericker

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
Bogs:

Easy, big fella. Darwinian fundies came up with natural selection,
COSMOLOGISTS came up with inflation, Henny Youngman came up with the
one-liner.
**********************
"Her Pa's in the city
He's so witty
He calls it,'The Zoo.'"
Name that tune

*********************


Steve Sondericker

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
On 8 Aug 1998 18:40:22 -0400, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <6qciuv$f9$2...@208.231.48.116>,
> ill...@nonsense.com (Thom Ass Pain) wrote:
>> In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:

>> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
>> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
>> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
>> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
>> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
>> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
>> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
>> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
>> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>> >
>>

>> Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
>> always constant;
>
>Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>

really? where do they say that?


dic...@drizzle.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
In article <6qik0g$e0t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <199808060834...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> anod...@aol.com (An odd one) wrote:
> > in article: <6qbmsk$ien$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>

> > >


> > >It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > >is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > >The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > >in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > >a foot in 15 years.
> > > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > >The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a
contradiction.
> > >
> > >

> > you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about
> 32000
> > miles away!!
>
> references please

References? Just read the thread then do the math.
No references needed. Someone claimed that the moon was moving away from
the earth at 2 cm per year, the math indicates that 2 cm per year is
insignificant.
Dick
dic...@drizzle.com

Keith Morrison

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to

Keep in mind that said theory must explain why measurements made by
graviometers and seismometers show that the moon looks suspiciously
like...a natural body.

--
Keith Morrison
kei...@Polarnet.ca


Sherilyn

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
In article <6qija4$d8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com
writes
>In article <35d2d8ae...@news.su.se>,
...
>>
>> : If time was
>> : run backward, it would infer ...
>
>imply
>
No, if time was going backwards, inference would precede implication. ;)
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!


Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[snip]


>
>Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.

It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
from physics. But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
your facts wrong here as well.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine
meltin' in a pot of thieves
wild card up my sleeve
thick heart of stone
my sins my own
they belong to me

Gloria (in excelsis deo) by Patti Smith


bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
In article <7MMUcKAw...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,

Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6qija4$d8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
> >In article <35d2d8ae...@news.su.se>,
> ...
> >>
> >> : If time was
> >> : run backward, it would infer ...
> >
> >imply
> >
> No, if time was

were

> going backwards, inference would precede implication. ;)

touche'


...

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>
> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> from physics.

so matt, prove us wrong.

all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
about big bang cosmology.

stumped?


> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> your facts wrong here as well.

there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.

John R Nickolls

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to

Reyn wrote:

> John R Nickolls wrote in message <35CCAC3D...@bigfoot.com>...
> >
> >By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in
> fact
> >artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll
> keep quiet.
>
> this sounds so weird that I really want to know about that theory. fire
> away!
>

> -Reyn

Well, all right then, since you ask. Please note that I don't necessarily
subscribe to this theory, and that it isn't my theory anyway. It's no crazier
than some of the notions expressed in this group, and is at least
'interesting'.

Briefly, two Soviet scientists, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Scherbakov,
proposed that the Moon was an artificial construct some years ago (no date
given in my notes, but probably post-Apollo) in the journal 'Sputnik'. They
based this suggestion on (among other things) the reported difference in
density between Earth and Moon (3.3 - 5.5) and the apparently hollow structure
revealed by seismographs. They also point out that craters have a maximum
depth, regardless of diameter, which suggest that they are formed in less
dense material over a denser core, which is in turn relatively hollow.

Weird enough? There's more...

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>
>stumped?

No, you still have to show some "Darwinian fundies" arguing as
"Darwinian fundies" for the speed of light.

>
>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>

No, I was using it to disparage your honesty.

Brent Howatt

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
: > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of

: > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
: >
: > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
: > from physics.

: so matt, prove us wrong.
: all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
: about big bang cosmology.

Why? Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is, I'd be
interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
cosmology rather limited. Whether or not the big bang is the best
explaination, I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do not
have an informed opinion.

: stumped?

By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.

: > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get


: > your facts wrong here as well.

: there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
: invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
: finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.

I thought you were talking about cosmology. Is your knowledge of science so
poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
you don't.

--
H. Brent Howatt, Dir. of Ins. Svcs. | The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
hho...@humboldt1.com PGP public key by FINGER or e-mail
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us http://www.humboldt.k12.ca.us


wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
On 10 Aug 1998 21:34:33 -0400, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>

>> [snip]


>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>
>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>

since few cosmologists have doubts about the big bang why should
biologists?

>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
>

>...

i think you're just saying his comments are too sophisticated for you.


came...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
> > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >
> > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> > from physics.
>
> so matt, prove us wrong.
>
> all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
> about big bang cosmology.
>
> stumped?

>
> > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> > your facts wrong here as well.
>
> there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
> invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>
> ...
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
>

You are confounding big bang cosmology with inflationary cosmology, the
latter being a subset of the former.

Dick

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:

>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.

Well, first you have to name 3 darwinian fundamentalists.


>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
>invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
>finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.

the "c" word is a description of a person who believes in the Young Earth
Creation, how can you call it invective when the creationists made it up
themselves to describe themselves?

Dick Craven
new sigfile under construction.
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr



Bowen Simmons

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:

>> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
speed of
>> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>>

>> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> from physics.
>
>so matt, prove us wrong.
>
>all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest doubts
>about big bang cosmology.
>

>stumped?
>

Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
cosmology even existed so it is far from clear why you believe that the
Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.

>
>> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
>> your facts wrong here as well.
>
>there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.

You regard "creationist" as a pejorative? Interesting.

>...

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net


bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to


In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,


bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> speed of
> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >>
> >> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> >> from physics.
> >
> >so matt, prove us wrong.
> >
> >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> >about big bang cosmology.
> >
> >stumped?
> >
>
> Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
> cosmology even existed

no kidding. can you name any warm-bodied ones?

> so it is far from clear why you believe that the
> Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.

kindly refer us to the post where anyone claimed that neo-darwinism has a
"dependency" on that particular cosmological model.

the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
controversial?

>
> >
> >> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> >> your facts wrong here as well.
> >
> >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.
>
> You regard "creationist" as a pejorative? Interesting.

can't stand the suspense. why is that interesting?

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <6qqbms$i14$1...@supernews.com>,

bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the

speed of
> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> : >
> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> : > from physics.
>
> : so matt, prove us wrong.
> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> : about big bang cosmology.
>
> Why?

because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.

> Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is...

you're an evolutionary biologist, and you've never heard of the term Darwinian
Fundamentalist? don't you think you should GET A CLUE before shooting your
mouth off about something you know nothing about?

> I'd be
> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of


> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
> cosmology rather limited.

obviously.

> Whether or not the big bang is the best

> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do


> not have an informed opinion.

obviously.

>
> : stumped?
>
> By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.

if it's green and wiggles, it's biology.

if it stinks, it's chemistry.

if it doesn't work, it's physics.


>
> : > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get


> : > your facts wrong here as well.
>

> : there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses


its
> : invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> : finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>

> I thought you were talking about cosmology.

no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
so much as a whimper.

> Is your knowledge of science so
> poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
> you don't.

is your knowledge of current polemics in the field of evolutionary biology so
poor that you've never heard the term Darwinian Fundamentalist? Your post


seems to suggest that you don't.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <6qqbms$i14$1...@supernews.com>,
> bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
>> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
>> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> : > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
>speed of
>> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>> : >
>> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
>> : > from physics.
>>
>> : so matt, prove us wrong.
>> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
>doubts
>> : about big bang cosmology.
>>
>> Why?
>
>because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
>wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.
>

What facts do I need? Speed of life is not a biological issue.

[snip]


>
>> I'd be
>> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
>> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
>> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
>> cosmology rather limited.
>
>obviously.

And so your point is refuted.

>> Whether or not the big bang is the best
>> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do
>> not have an informed opinion.
>
>obviously.

And so your point is refuted.

[snip]


>
>no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
>creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
>the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
>so much as a whimper.
>

Sorry, but I see no irony there. If I am ignorant about a subject it
is reasonable to accept the standard scientific explanation, it is
unreasonable to object to it.

[snip]

Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh.....Now you tell me what you know."
julius marx


Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>
>
>
>In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:

>> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
>> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>

>> >> [snip]


>> >> >
>> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
>> speed of
>> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
>> >>

[snip]

>the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
>standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
>controversial?
>

No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".

came...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <6qsbrd$cah$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> > In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> > >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >> >
> > >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> > speed of
> > >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> > >>
> > >> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> > >> from physics.
> > >
> > >so matt, prove us wrong.
> > >
> > >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
> doubts
> > >about big bang cosmology.
> > >
> > >stumped?
> > >
> >
> > Darwin, Wallace, Huxley. They all lived and died long before big bang
> > cosmology even existed
>
> no kidding. can you name any warm-bodied ones?
>
> > so it is far from clear why you believe that the
> > Darwinian evolution has any depency on that particular cosmological model.
>
> kindly refer us to the post where anyone claimed that neo-darwinism has a
> "dependency" on that particular cosmological model.
>
> the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
> standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
> controversial?
>
> >
> > >
> > >> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> > >> your facts wrong here as well.
> > >
> > >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again.
> >
> > You regard "creationist" as a pejorative? Interesting.
>
> can't stand the suspense. why is that interesting?
>
> ...
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
>

No, Bogs, what you said was that Darwinian fundies uncritically accept
inflation, which is not the same as "big bang cosmology." Which claim are
you making, the one for inflationary cosmology or the one for big bang
cosmology?

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <35d9c019...@news.iconnet.com>,

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <bowen-11089...@pm3-105.netgate.net>,
> > bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) wrote:
> >> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> >> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> >> >> In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
> >> speed of
> >> >> >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
> >> >>
> [snip]

>
> >the claim was made that (living) Darwinian fundies generally accept the
> >standard model of the big bang without question. you think that claim is
> >controversial?
> >
> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".

so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to

In article <6qpk7l$2io...@news.drizzle.com>,


talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
> In article <6qo7bl$cjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
> > mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>

> >> It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
> >> from physics.
> >
> >so matt, prove us wrong.
> >
> >all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
doubts
> >about big bang cosmology.
>

> Well, first you have to name 3 darwinian fundamentalists.
>

> >> But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
> >> your facts wrong here as well.
> >

> >there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses its
> >invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
> >finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
>

> the "c" word is a description of a person who believes in the Young Earth
> Creation, how can you call it invective when the creationists made it up
> themselves to describe themselves?

the word creationist has no such meaning as used on this newsgroup. it is a
sort of universal, catch-all invective freely used by Darwinian
Fundamentalists to vent their frustration at anyone who disagrees with their
shallow and blinkered fundamentalism. matt, being an old-timer, knows this.

bo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
In article <35d8bf77...@news.iconnet.com>,
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:

> Speed of life is not a biological issue.

sounds biological to me.

H. Brent Howatt

unread,
Aug 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/13/98
to
In article <6qsd4q$i60$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+In article <6qqbms$i14$1...@supernews.com>,
+ bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com (Brent Howatt) wrote:
+> bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> : In article <35d9c2cd....@news.iconnet.com>,
+> : mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
+> : > In talk.origins bo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> : > >Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the
+speed of
+> : > >light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
+> : >
+> : > It is interesting how you find it difficult to distinguish biology
+> : > from physics.
+>
+> : so matt, prove us wrong.
+> : all ya gotta do is name 3 Darwinian fundies who have even the slightest
+doubts
+> : about big bang cosmology.
+>
+> Why?
+
+because he took issue with the statement, that's why. if he thinks it's
+wrong, all he has to do is back up his claim with some facts.
+
+> Although I don't have a clue what a "darwinian fundie" is...
+
+you're an evolutionary biologist, and you've never heard of the term Darwinian
+Fundamentalist? don't you think you should GET A CLUE before shooting your
+mouth off about something you know nothing about?

You were honking about the supposedly pejorative use of the term
"creationist", and you seem to be using this as your comeback. When asked, I
can define what I mean by YEC, etc. Since Darwin was a biologist and
geologist, it is hard to understand how a strict Darwinian Fundamentalist
would stretch evolutionary biology to include astrophysics and cosmology. I
know of none who do. Since you have made the claim, perhaps you could back it
up with some references from the literature.

+> I'd be
+> interested in you showing me where some of them posit that "the speed of
+> light was not a physical limit during the inflationary period." As an
+> evolutionary biologist, I have no opinion about it, since my knowledge of
+> cosmology rather limited.
+
+obviously.

It does appear to be substantially better than yours, however.

+> Whether or not the big bang is the best
+> explaination [sic], I will leave to the physicists. I'm interested, but I do
+> not have an informed opinion.
+
+obviously.

My degree is in biology; not physics. What about you?

+> : stumped?
+>
+> By your inability to distinguish between biology and physics, yes.
+
+if it's green and wiggles, it's biology.

Not if its a hologram.

+if it stinks, it's chemistry.

Not if its a dead sea lion on the beach.

+if it doesn't work, it's physics.

Only if it attempts to use the laws of physics as posited by luddites such as
yourself.
+>
+> : > But, like many creationist claims about biology, you get
+> : > your facts wrong here as well.
+>
+> : there's that tired multi-purpose "C"-word pejorative again. kinda looses
+its
+> : invective impact when so freely used to include anyone who questions the
+> : finality of the neo-darwinian explanation.
+>
+> I thought you were talking about cosmology.
+
+no, Brent. we were talking about the irony of how Darwinian fundies criticize
+creationists for speculating about whether the speed of light was different in
+the past, and yet they calmy accept the standard model of the big bang without
+so much as a whimper.

Not so at all. I recognize the merit in some of the alternative explainations
being discussed currently. See the most recent issue of Scientific American
for a laymans discussion of such.

+> Is your knowledge of science so
+> poor that you don't know the difference? Your post seems to suggest that
+> you don't.
+
+is your knowledge of current polemics in the field of evolutionary biology so
+poor that you've never heard the term Darwinian Fundamentalist? Your post
+seems to suggest that you don't.

My understanding of Darwinian Fundamentalism as a school of thought in
evolutionary biology is that it is silent on not only the Big Bang, but other
aspects of astrophysics as well. I was asking you what it was that you
meant by the term that it became so all inclusive. You do not appear to
understand science at all. I notice that you have not responded to the other
posts in this thread that respond directly to the issue of the speed of light
in the early universe postulated by the Big Bang model.


H. Brent Howatt, Director of Ins. Svc.| The first days are the hardest days,


Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================

bho...@humboldt1.com FINGER for PGP public key
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us


ot...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Aug 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/13/98
to

[snip]


>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>
>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you

>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.

You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
universe where fundy means something completely different
than it does here?

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/13/98
to
In talk.origins ot...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
>[snip]
>
>
>>> No, I think that is a different claim. The original claim is above.
>>> There is a big difference between "accept" and "argue for".
>>
>>so let's cut to the chase, matt. being a fundie yourself, perhaps you can
>>explain to us why you get so hotheaded whenever you hear a creationist musing
>>about the speed of light being different in the past, but yet you
>>uncritically accept the standard model of the big bang.
>
>You really think Matt is a fundy? Are you from a parallel
>universe where fundy means something completely different
>than it does here?

Bogs is trolling and using deceptive language. He means "Darwinian
Fundamentalist" which has a rather specific meaning. But Bogs is using
words in a manner that is likely to deceive and inhibit communication.

Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh.....Now you tell me what you know."

Julius Marx


Matt Silberstein

unread,
Aug 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/13/98