Except that this was proposed and generally accepted before we landed on the moon. And no, the absence of significant "moon dust" is not evidence of a young moon, again this argument is so bad that even YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis advise against using it.
Once again, the issue of moon dust was confirmed science until it wasn't. It is simple science that bonds between atoms are degraded when bombarded with great amounts of EM energy. Look at the sand deserts. Granted that the process is accelerated on earth due to the presence of minute amounts of water in the rock, but the principle is the same. The EM energy (in this case infrared) turns rock into sand. Now consider the moon, receiving hundreds of times the energy with no EM field or atmosphere to mitigate it, recieving not only the visible light and the infrared, but the gamma radiation, microwave and ultraviolet. The presence of the dust that there is speaks of the process, especially considering the obvious volcanic process that must have occured after the "meteorstrikes". Also, it is very difficult for a meteor to hit the earth-side of the moon, since it is locked facing the earth and the vast majority of the craters on this side are calderas formed at the beginning of its existence. The dismissal of the issue was philosophical rather than scientific.
It's possible that charged hydrogen in the solar wind could be hitting oxygen isotopes on the lunar surface with enough force to break the oxygen bonds and thus create free oxygen and hydrogen which could then bond to form water molecules. It's also possible that some of that water arrived there in the form of comets striking the lunar surface. Neither of these process' precludes an old moon whereas numerous other indicators, such as impact craters, support an old moon.
These are processes which are put forward only because of the a priori of an old earth-moon system. Water was found recently in a polar crater where darkeness is continual. They looked there specifically because of the issue of microwaves. But microwaves, as anyone who owns the appliance can tell you, also transfer significant amounts of energy to metals, which would lead to bond fatigue and then to dust.
"Despite having a surface area only about 1/10 that of earth, our moon is covered by millions of craters. About a half a million have diameters greater than 1 km. The largest is about 360 kilometers (200 miles) wide; dozens are over 150 km in width. Note that the Chicxulub crater on Earth, believed to have contributed to the K-T extinction when dinosaurs and many other life forms went extinct, is about 160 km wide, thought to have been made by a meteorite approximately 10 - 15 km wide. Many such impacts are thought to have occurred during an intense bombardment period about 3.9 billion years ago. On the moon, this evidently resulted in the formation of 1700 lunar craters 100 kilometers wide or larger, defacing about 80% of the moon's crust (Cohen, 2001). As Cohen notes: "The Earth would not have escaped a similar beating during this time." Indeed, since the Earth's surface is over 13 times that of the moon, we can estimate that over major 20,000 meteors (each capable of making 100 km or larger crater) would have impacted the earth during this early bombardment episode alone. If compressed into a "Flood year," that amounts to over 50 major impacts a day. If further condensed into a "few days" as Faulkner suggests, the earth would have received several hundred major impacts each day. Yet, surprisingly Faulkner does not deal with the implications of this for human survival."
http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm
Most of the "craters"on this side are calderas. Even if this was true, look at the erosion of the craters on this side. You can easy see that a crater is a young impact crater (such as Tycho) But the walls of most of the craters are eroded. And the walls of the "seas even more so. Where did all that rock go to? Dust!
Yes, an impact large enough to blast out the raw materials needed to make the moon would not have left an atmosphere on earth. That atmosphere was formed by volcanic out gassing as well as from materials brought in by comets.
The evidence doesn't support the "outgassing" theory. The chemicals of the atmosphere are not even close to being proportional to the chemicals produced by volcanic outgassing. Oxygen is being slowly released by the soil, but volcanic out gassing would not release enough to produce the atmosphere that we have. The oxygen released by the soil is only a sustainable system if it is calculated over hundreds of trillions of years, longer than even the scientists would postulate. In addition, this great "impact" would have an enormous impact on the plate structure of the earth, one that is not consistant with our present earth. The "comet" theory is again one proposed only to explain the inconsistancies of scientific models regarding the origin of earth.
Yes, the math does work. Recent computer simulations have shown how a glancing blow from a Mars-sized body could have thrown up enough material to form the moon.
That work is highly suspect, not only becuse it explains one thing while opening up a thousand other problems, but because it is a theory that uses the Sherlock maxim rather than Ocham's razor: Since the moon was formed by an impact, the only math that works, however improbable, must be the explanation.
(
source)
Originally it was a ring of fragments, but those fragments collided and coalesced via gravity to form the moon.
"The model and some variants, collaboratively developed by scientists at the Southwest Research Institute (William Ward and Robin Canup; others) and the University of Arizona (A.G.W. Cameron, Jay Melosh, William Hartmann; others), considers the impact to have occurred late in the formational history of the Earth, but probably prior to the differentiation that formed an early terrestrial crust. At this time, a part, perhaps much, of the outer Earth may have been molten. A Mars-sized asteroid or small planet (about 10% of the present terrestrial mass) struck the Earth at a glancing angle. Although the Earth survived total disruption, much of the outer shell on one side was tossed into space, but held to the Earth by its larger gravity. The fragments in the ejecta plume are affected by rotational forces from Earth and within 24 hours have organized into a near circular orbit. In time these fragments (whose composition mirrors that of the primitive Earth's outer shell(s)) began to collide until the Moon was built up to its present size, large enough for it to have melted and reshaped into a sphere, developing an anorthositic crust. The Earth, still forming, healed its "wound", resumed its organization during subsequent remelting into a near-sphere, and went on to fully differentiate into the crust, mantle, and core that has survived to the present day.
The advantages of the swiping impact model are these: 1) a proper relation between Earth-Moon angular momentum comes out of the calculations; 2) the high heat of such an event boils off all water and some of the volatile elements sodium and potassium; 3) the similarity of refractory element composition between Earth and its satellite is explained; 4) only the outer mantle and any early crust are involved; 5) temperatures in a glancing event would have been higher (up to 18000° K); 6) a larger fraction of the Earth target would be ejected into orbit; 7) differences in composition could be due to incorporation of some of the impactor body, which likely varied somewhat from Earth.”
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6b.html
It is unlikely that such a ring could have formed into a sphere because of the competing gravitational pulls of Earth and the Sun. An example of this problem is the asteroid belt. Again, we use Sherlock's maxim. "The advantage of this model is that..."
You are confusing the amino acids used to build genes with the genes themselves. It is quite likely that left handed amino acids were “selected for” due to their prevalence and because their basic structure helps to build stable structures in certain environments better than right handed amino acids do. As far as abiogenesis goes, there is no one generally accepted theory or hypothesis but irregardless of whether life started in several places at once or at one time if there is a prevalence of one type of building block it’s more than likely that it will be selected for.
Non biological formation of amino acids result in an approximately even split. There is no explanation of how left-sided molecules would have an advantage, you are stating as fact that which is not evidenced. Sherlock's maxim again: since there is almost no left handed molecules, there must have been an advantage. By the way, there are a few simple life forms with right handed twists, so survivability is not really a problem.
Why? Because evolution does not produce “perfect” adaptations, merely ones that are “good enough”. I still don’t see any problem with the evolution of amphibians here besides that evolution didn’t do what you think it should have. Remember that evolution is driven by environment, and environment is not homogenous.
But that is exactly the issue: evolution produces helpful adaptations except when it doesn't. The environmental history of the earth would have created increasingly narrow species spread as species died rather than changed quickly enough. Evolution demand greater homogeny in order for the genetic spread to widen.
I’m still not getting your point. What “process” should we be observing “all the time” if viruses evolved rather than appeared instantly?
There should be a process by which living organisms continue to produce viruses, since viruses are so abundant and show such a wide genetic spread.
Contradicting evidence being clear evidence showing that an event did not happen; a tomb that still contained the body of Christ, a blind man that still couldn’t see, an entire planet that shows not evidence of being covered with water 4,350 years ago, ect.
You mean like this,
Scientists Create a Form of Pre-Life? Why should there be an “abundance” of simple stable pre-life?
Lurker
