> Scott Huse writes in "The Collapse of Evolution", 1983, Baker Book
> House, page 25...
>
> The basic problem with which evolutionists have to contend is that the
> moon is presently much too close to earth. Calculations based on the
> known recession speed of the moon and presumed evolutionary age of 4 to
> 5 billion years require that the moon should be much further away from
> the earth than it is. Obviously, the earth-moon system is not as old as
> evolutionary scientists have assumed. The vast time span essential for
> the presumed evolution of life forms is apparently mythological and
> non-existent." (cite is Barnes, Thomas G., "Young Age for the Moon and
> Earth", Impact No. 110, ICR, California, August 1982, p. 4)
>
> Alan previously wrote that the rate of recession was 5.6 centimeters per
> year. Considering the moon is currently about 384,403 km away, this
> would mean that at that rate of recession the moon would have touched
> the earth approximately 21.53 mya. Catastrophe would have occurred many
> millions of years before that.
>
> Any thoughts?
Loren wrote
>Yep.
> 384,403 x 10^3 meters
> divided by 0.056 meters per year
> ---------------------------------
> = 6.9 x 10^9 years.
I checked Loren's math and got the same result. (evidently the source of
Huse's figure _didn't_ check his) 6.9 x 10^9 is 6.9 billion years.
Other factors complicate the situation and may invalidate Huse's simple
assumption of constant recession rate (or at least that the current
recession rate is not significantly different from the mean recession rate
over time).
For example, the recession of the moon is caused by the earth's tidal bulge
(which of course is caused by the moon's gravity). As the earth rotates
under the moon in the same direction as the moon's revolution, but at a
much higher angular rate, friction between the water and the earth causes
the tidal bulge to have a higher angular rate than the moon. The
gravitational attraction between the moon and the bulge gives the moon a
slight kick every time the tidal bulge passes under the moon. Thus prior
to the time the oceans condensed, there may have been no reason for the
moon to recede from the earth. Once the oceans condensed and tidal action
began, the tidal kick would have caused an accelerating rate of recession.
The moon would have started out at zero recession rate (zero contribution
from tides anyway) and slowly (it is quite a massive body after all)
accelerated. So the assumption of 5.6 cm per year forever in the past is
questionable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148