The Earth/ Moon system- Refuting a 4.5 billion year old Earth
Astrophysicist Dr Jason Lisle (a YEC) has a book out titled "Taking Back Astronomy". In it he states:
(which can also be read HERE)
An explanation, along with his calculations can be read HERE
If all this holds water, the theory of evolution just suffered a major blow from which it cannot recover. (I say "If" only because all scientific data are tentative)
The moon moves about an inch and a half further away from the earth every year due to this tidal interaction. Thus, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical timescale of six thousand years.
If, however, the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as big bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close, that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
(which can also be read HERE)
An explanation, along with his calculations can be read HERE
If all this holds water, the theory of evolution just suffered a major blow from which it cannot recover. (I say "If" only because all scientific data are tentative)
posted by Joe G @ 10:07 PM
26 Comments:
At 12:09 AM,
mynym said…
Check out this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/11/13/getting_the_mooney_treatment.php
I think you might be interested in it.
Later.
At 4:06 AM,
Anonymous said…
pathetic
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes C. Loach I know you are pathetic. Did you have a point? Or did you just want to announce that fact?
Does C. Loach have ANY data that over-turns what I posted? Apparently not and that is very pathetic.
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Thanks Mynym, I usually check that blog about every other day. It is just more of the same ole, same ole...
At 10:21 AM,
David said…
Like all YEC science, this one doesn't survive sunshine. The magnitude of the tidal forces depends on variables including the configutaion of the oceans. To take a current value of something (such as the recession of the moon or the magnitude of the magnetic field) and extrapolate as if it were a constant (or even a fair average) is not a legitimate approach.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Thanks for responding David!
If you had followed the links you would have seen that astrophysicist Dr Lisle does NOT extrapolate as if it were constant. Quite the opposite. He states the rate of recession would have been greater in the past due to the increased angular momentum.
However I do understand your point about the configuration of the Earth (land to water config). But that also requires data to substantiate. IOW you don't get a free pass just by stating the current config wasn't the same as before.
I know we have data that shows at one time there was one land mass (Pangea?). But I haven't read any data that shows the amount of water was different- although obviously there had to have been a point when there wasn't any surface water to speak of.
That said the non-ID or non-Creation model of the Earth/ Moon formation has many other issues to overcome:
Problems for 'giant impact' origin of moon
What I have been meaning to do is to write to AiG with something similar to what you posted so I can "flesh it out" so to speak. Because one does need to know what the Earth's config was when the Moon finally did form. My initial reaction when I read the AiG article was that there wasn't any water to speak of because of the impact. However the Earth's surface, or much of it, may have been liquified, and any liquid would(?) react to the force of the Moon causing similar results.
So today (later today) seems like a good day to send that email and if I get a response I will ask their permission to post it.
Please stay tuned...
At 8:34 PM,
Anonymous said…
hmmmm.............I think I've heard this argument before.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204
Let's see that was written in 1982. So there were 24 years to collect more data, improve models and publish. Yet all data is "tentative." Then again what do I know, or what does the collective establishment of geologists and astrophysicists know?
Hansen, K. S. 1982. Secular Effects of Oceanic Tidal Dissipation on the Moon's Orbit and the Earth's Rotation. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 20(3): 457-480.
Kagan, B.A. & Maslova, N.B. 1994. A stochastic model of the Earth-moon tidal evolution accounting for cyclic variations of resonant properties of the ocean: An asymptotic solution Earth, Moon and Planets. 66: 173-188.
Oh, crap. Your model fails to consider plate tectonics. Oh, well. At least this argument is only 24 years out of date.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
(Both of these link also include numerous other references
Let's see faulty data, poor models and bad math..... but then again maybe you're on to something.
At 11:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Thanks Bob. I seriously doubt that Dr Lisle failed to take into account for plate tectonics. But anything is possible.
I am awaiting the book but from what I can tell it is recent (2006)- ie not from 24 years ago. So perhaps he takes into consideration what Tim Thompson posted. The ad does say "cutting edge information"...
Did you read the article that rebuts Tim's?
When the book arrives I will let you know. I have also contacted AiG and asked them to respond to David's config issue and I gave them this URL- so hopefully someone from there will check-in before then and let us know.
At 7:19 AM,
Anonymous said…
hi bob,
yes, you heard it before and choose to ignore it.
http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp
Let's see hand waving, poor models and just so stories..... but then again maybe you're on to something.
I might add here that data does not prove YEC claim of the age of the Earth/Moon system, it just shows that at best Moon is 1.4-2.3 billion years old
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Thanks Inunison!
I should have added that this does not support YEC, ie a 6,000-12,000 year-old Earth.
That was NOT my point with this blog.
That said I do say that the Earth/ Moon system is excellent evidence for ID and/ or Creation, not only for the reason in this blog but also for the reasons I blogged about in my May additions "Factors Required for Complex Life" and "The Privileged Planet".
At 11:11 AM,
Anonymous said…
One might also ask the question: why is this, lets say, 2.3 billion years model for Earth/Moon system a problem?
It is based, I am afraid, on solid maths and latest observations.
Well, you can get answers in two papers mentioned by bob and I'll add another one for good measure:
(1) Hansen, Kirk S. 1982,
(2) Kagan, B.A. & Maslova, N.B. 1994
(3) Ray R.D., Bills B.G., Chao B.F. 1999
Examination of the above papers exactly confirms this scenario:
Present configuration of the continents is unacceptable because they did not give enough time. Hence, all they can say is that using very artificial and unprovable position of theoretical land masses, they allow the moon to be much older than previous, more realistic, calculations have shown. Thus, instead of using hard evidence (the present continent positions), they concoct a totally unrealistic position, and then have the temerity to effectively claim “Therefore, this paper PROVES that the moon is old.”
These papers are evidence of blatant reversal of the normal scientific methodology. Lets assume that system is 4.6 billion years old and than play with the model (position of the continents) so we get required result.
Real science doesn't play this game!
At 2:51 PM,
Joe G said…
The book has arrived. I will comment on it/ with it as time allows.
At 2:13 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is the kind of YEC science that enrages me.
Consider first a couple of simple examples of real science.
1. Bees can't fly.
Obviously they can, but in the early days of the theory of aerodynamics someone applied the theory of aeridynamics to bees flight, assuming that the vorticity around a bee's wings (which is vital to generate lift) was caused by the forward motion of the wings. The result was a lift force 50% too low for bees to fly.
2. Solar neutrinos
It appeared that the sun only emits one third of the neutrinos which would be generated if it were powered solely by nuclear fusion.
Now, how did scientists approach these problems? Did they conclude that bees are not governed by aerodynamics, or that the sun is powered by gravitational collapse?
No. They assumed their original theories were correct and sought to improve their models. In the case of bee flight they discovered that many birds and insects generate vorticity when they pull their wings apart at the top of the stroke. For solar neutrinos they revised their assumption that neutrinos had zero rest mass. In both cases the contradiction between theory and initial observation was resolved and confirmed by experiment.
So what's different with lunar recession? An initial model disagrees with what is expected by a factor of 3 (cf bee flight and solar neutrinos). The discrepancy can be resolved if a key assumption is modified (cf how bee's generate vorticity, rest mass of neutrino).
The only difference is that we can't confirm or deny the new model by direct experiment.
We can only judge by how plausible the model is. To make that judgement you need to understand the science involved properly, and I have found no decent analysis by any YEC author. The cited reference on trueorigins shows absolutely no understanding of scientific method.
For example, he ridicules the suggestion that the mathemetical tools to model tidal response functions would have changed between the mid 60's and 1982. Yet by 1982 mathematicians were starting to harness computing power to resolve hitherto untractable problems. Vast progress was made in many fields in that time frame.
Or that the simple continental models used by Hansen were chosen to give artificial results. Having a PhD in applied mathematics, I can assure you that any mathematician worth his salt would have started with such a model. I've seen polymer molecules modelled as dumbbells and thermals as top-hats. Given the limited computing power available in 1982 it was almost certainly the best Hansen could do, and would have been published in any respectable scientific journal whether or not it was related to evolutionary controversies.
Perhaps nothing better should be expected from Malcolm bowden the author of the trueorigins refutation. He's a geocentrist who rejects most of 20th century physics (releativity, quantum physics).
But Jason Lisle is a qualified scientist. He should understand what he is talking about. So when he dismisses the arguments of secular astronomers by saying that they are making extra ssumptions to make their model work he is being disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. He himself is happy to allow for the way the moon's recession depends on distance, because he can provide a simple equation for that, but he wants to assert that the dependence on rotation rate and configuration of the continents remains constant. The issue is not whether the tidal response function is constant; no scientific analysis could dispute that it varies. The only question is by how much. But that would make the argument too messy and uncertain for Jason Lisle so he avoids the issue.
At 8:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Dr Bob:
...but he wants to assert that the dependence on rotation rate and configuration of the continents remains constant.
That is false. Better luck next time- there are still many straws to try to grasp.
Does Dr Bob really think the Earth/ Moon system is the result of sheer-dumb-luck?
At 6:55 AM,
Anonymous said…
Do please inform me how Jason Lisle does account for rotation rate and continental shift.
(And may I point out that to simply assume a linear relationship between rotation rate and tidal drag coefficient would ignore the known complexity of tidal interactions.)
At 7:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Dr Bob:
Do please inform me how Jason Lisle does account for rotation rate and continental shift.
Why don't you go to AiG and ask him? He does state in his book that continent config has very little impact and can actually increase the constant k:
dr/dt=k/r^6
Why don't you just present a valid model of how the Earth/ Moon system arose without the help of a designer or a Creator? (follow the link in the 6th comment for the issues faced)
And please keep the following in mind:
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” -"The Privileged Planet"
At 6:28 PM,
Anonymous said…
Bob said...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
There is a refutation to that specific link. here Technical but shows Talk origin's bluff once again!
At 4:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
Bob said
There is a refutation to that specific link. Technical but shows Talk origin's bluff once again!
Some refutation. Hansen models the continents as "... a spherical cap with the center either at the equator (the equatorial continent), or at the pole (the polar continent)." (quoted from the paper by Kagan and Maslova). This 'refutation' instead describes the latter configuration as a single continuous band around the equator. So 'Technical' that they clearly haven't even read the primary technical source. (Though they feel no contradiction in accusing the TalkOrigins author of failing to check his data!) Besides that there is no critique whatsoever of the underlying mathematical theory other than to attack the simplified nature of the model. However, for a numerical simulation that accounts for the actual supposed continental configurations for the past 600 MYear and similarly concludes that the moon would have receded less rapidly in the past, see "Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the earth-moon system", E Poliakow, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004: 445-452. (Available here http://journals.cambridge.org/)
joe g said
Why don't you go to AiG and ask him? He does state in his book that continent config has very little impact and can actually increase the constant k
First of all, thank you for telling me what Dr Lisle writes in his book. I do not have that book nor do I wish to encourage Dr Lisle by purchasing one. Actually the primary effect investigated by Hansen is the dependency of the tidal drag on angular frequency, due
to the interaction with normal modes (resonances). (You can check the abstract of Hansen's paper here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs). If Dr Lisle is correct to state that the geometry of the oceans has only a minor effect (though this is contradicted by Poliakow), then that only makes Hansen's model more applicable, rather than less. However, you are right. I should ask Dr Lisle. Perhaps we'll see what he says.
Why don't you just present a valid model of how the Earth/ Moon system arose without the help of a designer or a Creator?
I'll stick to the original topic of the blog and to those aspects of the problem that I have the time to research. I don't believe in making statements on scientific questions on the basis of ignorance.
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Thanks for thr references. I too am awaiting a respoinse from AiG...
Why don't you just present a valid model of how the Earth/ Moon system arose without the help of a designer or a Creator?
Dr Bob:
I'll stick to the original topic of the blog and to those aspects of the problem that I have the time to research. I don't believe in making statements on scientific questions on the basis of ignorance.
My point being that this whole "math deal" is moot if any alternative model fails to get an Earth/ Moon system in the first place.
However this thread was so that I could "flesh out" Dr Lisle's position, and as time permits I will follow your links. And to be honest, even though I knew the Earth rotation was faster right after the alleged impact (perhaps something close to a 5 hr rotation rate), that had completely slipped away from me when I started this thread.
IOW Dr Bob thank you.
At 6:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
dr bob said: "This is the kind of YEC science that enrages me."
First of all this has nothing to do with YEC assumptions. As I said before, clearly data does not support YEC claim of the age of the Earth/Moon system, it just shows that at best Moon is 1.4-2.3 billion years old. Hence question remains, why is this, lets say, 2.3 billion years model, (mathematically sound one I might add) for Earth/Moon system a problem?
Second, dr bob, calls upon paper of the "numerical simulation that accounts for the actual supposed continental configurations" by E. Poliakow. Actual supposed? What does that mean? Something is either actual or supposed not both at the same time. And this is served to us as science?
The fact remains, by using very artificial and unprovable position of theoretical land masses, the moon is allowed to be much older in order to "fit" assumption. Playing games again, aren't we dr bob?
At 10:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
joe g said
Thanks for thr references.
Kagan and Maslova's paper is also available on the internet here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x735032171355335/fulltext.pdf
... or rather it used to be - you can still get the abstract. It now seems to need authorization. Pity. Though to be honest the mathematical treatment is such that it really doesn't make a lot of sense without some of the earlier research papers that it cites.
My point being that this whole "math deal" is moot if any alternative model fails to get an Earth/ Moon system in the first place.
Fair enough, such a model is required. But the absence of a current explanation does not prove that something is not possible. Go back 25 years, when there was no resolution to the solar neutrino problem, a writer in the Creation Research Society Quarterly declared "The lack of solar neutrinos is almost irrefutable evidence for a recently created sun . . .". YECs have now abandoned that argument.
And I am (or was) a mathematician. I have investigated to the best of my ability the arguments presented in regard to the moon's recession and judge that the writers putting forward the YEC position are either ignorant or dishonest for failing to take proper account of what secular researchers are saying. If I find serious failings when they discuss an area that I do feel competent to examine, why should I believe what they say in a field that I am less familiar with?
inunison said
Actual supposed? What does that mean?
My apologies. I was clear in my own mind what I meant, but rather opaque in writing. Poliakow considers the continental positions for the last 600M years as predicted by plate tectonics. Hence the model is "actual" (and not artificial) in the sense that there is no deliberate simplification of the geometry to simplify the mathematics, but only "supposed" in the sense that plate tectonics cannot state the exact shape and position of the continents. Of course, you needn't have asked, as I did provide you with a reference from which you could have read the paper for yourself.
But it is important to note that these continental positions are derived quite independently and therefore Poliakow cannot be accused of choosing the geometry to fit his answer. I would also add that the geological arguments in favour of plate tectonics are so strong that even many YECs (accepting that you are not one) feel compelled to include it in their flood theories (cf catastrophic plate tectonics).
Hence question remains, why is this, lets say, 2.3 billion years model, (mathematically sound one I might add) for Earth/Moon system a problem?
The figure of 2.3 billion years is only as mathematically sound as the assumptions on which it is based, and the main assumption is that the tidal response function does not change (or according to Dr Lisle, perhaps increases with angular frequency). Hansen showed that normal modes (resonances) play a very large role in determining the frequency response, and Poliakow has shown that continental geometry can reduce the response function by between 3 and 8. That's not special pleading to make the facts fit; it's the way mathematical modelling always proceeds - start with a simple model and then improve it by examining and refining the assumptions.
Playing games again
Not at all. I'm trying to show how the science behind this problem is proceeding in exactly the same way as it has for the other scientific problems I cited. I would strongly encourage you to read some of the relevant scientific papers and to examine the mathematics for yourself.
At 2:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Again, I am NOT trying to make any YEC argument.
And as far as what secular scientists say- their whole Earth/ Moon scenario seems pretty unlikely given what we do know.
But fair enough- I may have time to follow your links tonight. And there is more than that on my plate- I will not let this get buried.
I will add the following:
A Creationist- Snyder (Snider?)- was the first, before Wegner, to talk about continental drift (19th century), which wasn't accepted by mainstream until the 1960s...
At 3:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Ahha- a test:
Perhaps this won't occur in our lifetimes but here goes-
We keep watching the measured rate of recession. The model posed by Lisle et al. would require for a continued decrease, ie from 3.82 cm/yr to 3.5 cm/ yr (in recession rate), whereas the "other" model would have the distance increase, ie from 3.82 to 4.x.
At 12:59 PM,
Anonymous said…
dr bob said: "That's not special pleading to make the facts fit; it's the way mathematical modelling (sic) always proceeds - start with a simple model and then improve it by examining and refining the assumptions."
It seems to me we are colleagues. In my mind this is example of bad math modeling. First we all start with assumptions of one kind or the other, than we create model based on data derived from observations and than do the fine tuning of the model as required by new data or improved maths. If, as you say, we start with simple model and than improve it by examining assumptions we are entering pure metaphysics (and I would say undiluted scientific nightmare). But than again, that's probably not what you meant?
Than dr bob said: "...the writers putting forward the YEC position are either ignorant or dishonest for failing to take proper account of what secular researchers are saying. If I find serious failings when they discuss an area that I do feel competent to examine, why should I believe what they say in a field that I am less familiar with?"
My feeling exactly towards some secular researchers. But again, let me ask you, why are you bringing in YEC claims into this discussion? YEC metaphysical commitment is towards earth/moon system that is few thousand years old and that assumption is not hidden from their writings. I am afraid that, as you call them, "secular researchers" have another metaphysical commitment, in this case 4,6 Billion years. Best available observational data points toward 1,4-2,3 Billion years. Simulation of 600 Million years old history of plate tectonics is dubious at best, no matter how accurate maths behind the model is. We have no way of knowing if 600 Million years went geologically undisturbed or catastrophes had to be accounted for (meteors, comets or whatever).
Another three assumptions that are always unstated whenever we go beyond historical written records. The dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed.
At 5:41 PM,
Anonymous said…
Lost my password and couldn't get it back. Had to create a new account.
inunison said
... why are you bringing in YEC claims into this discussion?
It wasn't me! Joe G started this blog by quoting an article written by a YEC and hosted on a YEC web site. You defended that article by citing two further YEC web sites. Joe G then wished me to respond to an article on the formation of the moon also written by a YEC and hosted on a YEC web site.
My response was that because the YEC authors in the one case were, in my opinion, ignorant or dishonest, why should I believe the YEC author of the article on the formation of the moon? I might add that Michael Oard, the author of that article, is also a strong denier of human causes for global warming. You might like to take a look here for a response to that article, though I offer no comment on its contents:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/oard_moon_beam_gh.htm
If, as you say, we start with simple model and than improve it by examining assumptions we are entering pure metaphysics (and I would say undiluted scientific nightmare). But than again, that's probably not what you meant?
That's exactly what I meant and I gave two other examples of that paradigm.
Go back to the 1960's and there was no way that scientists could calculate the tidal response function, so they had to assume that it was constant. It can now be calculated, and for the current continents and rotation of the earth, calculations agree very well with observations. So what is the problem with running those same calculations but with different continental configurations and rotation of the earth to determine the validity or otherwise of the assumption that the tidal response function is constant?
Granted that we do not know the exact positions of the continents, these calculations show that the tidal response function can vary very significantly. Therefore the evolution of the earth/moon system cannot be used to refute a 4.5 billion year age. It does not necessarily prove that the earth/moon system is that old but the uncertainties are such that a 4.5 billion year age is well within the likely bounds.
At 2:05 AM,
Anonymous said…
dr bob, all you've said confirms my suspicion that 4,5 Billion years was a goal (assumption) around which math models were made by quoted researchers . In my mind that is poor modeling and not conductive to finding the truth. And I am not saying that 4,5 Billion years are not within likely bounds, but lets rather work with what we know rather than what we assume. Based on the data that we can observe Earth/Moon system age is within 1,4-2,3 Billion years boundary. I can understand that this would be a problem for YEC position that has prior commitment to revelation, but why should this be a problem for those who claim support for science alone? Unless, of course, there is some other commitment which is not openly acknowledged.
Post a Comment
<< Home