No, it is simply a non-issue. Numerous other dating methods easily demonstrate that the earth is old and the moon-dust argument is a YEC talking point that is so debunked that even YEC organizations tell people like you not to use it.
I have no expectation that you will ever move beyond the "this is not an issue". The fact is that the EM band radiation is the primary mover for all the weather on the inner planets. Without the ozone and our EM field the rocks of the earth would be leeched of many of the lighter elements and reduced (slowly but surely) to dust.
You can’t be serious. . .does the fact that we can actually see weathering occurring which produces sand that looks exactly like the sand that’s in a desert already bother you at all? Sure, heat from the sun can be a form of weathering as it helps to produce wind; is a major player in the water cycle; and can help to shatter rocks through repeated heating and cooling, but sand deserts are not the product of the same process that likely produced water on the moon via the breaking of molecular bonds from solar radiation.
The wadis of the Saharah are the result of thousands of years of infrared radiation. It was not water, because there is none, it was not wind, because there is not enough exposed stone to wear down. Remember that the EM band is very wide and we only get a small portion of that band.
Detailed lunar pictures are not hard to find, here’s a great place to start:
Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon
When you find a formation consistent with your rather convoluted claims let me know.
Just look up at the great circular calderas of the moon. Even the ones that are not affected by vulcanism have areas were the rims are worn down. Not by water, not by wind, but by radiation.
Yes, and the craters on the near side of the moon look shockingly like the craters on the far side of the moon. The far side does have more, but they are craters nonetheless. See for yourself,
Far Side of the Moon
Near side of the Moon
Look again at the survey of the near side of the moon, the lunar mare only covers about 40% of the surface leaving plenty of room for dust to accumulate. Furthermore, there are lots of impact craters within the mare that obviously occurred after volcanic activity ceased. Once again, reality disagrees with you.
Once again you miss the point. There is dust on the mares. Not from meteor strike, but from the wear of radiation.
Except that it is consistent with outgassing combined with photosynthetic oxygen evolution since the gases from which plants free oxygen would have been present.
There is not nearly enough carbon in the air, nor sulfur (I noticed that your illustration did not include sulfides). Go visit an "outgassing" volcano and see for yourself. The lithospere cannot be explained by "outgassing."
Atmospheric Evolution
Our current atmosphere is the result of influences on it over time, it has not remained static since the formation of the moon.
If the moon was broken off by a meteor impact, there would not be enough atmosphere to begin an oxygen cycle. If the impact through that much rock into escape velocity, there would be nothing left.
Except that this is not at all how the hypothesis of the evolution of earth’s atmosphere was developed or confirmed. In reality the theory was developed to explain observations and is supported by evidence such as banded iron formations.
“Banded iron formations are silica-rich rocks that show alternating thin layers of dark and red iron-rich rock. They are the most economically important deposits of iron ore. The silica probably was dissolved from volcanic ash and rock, and the iron came from sea floor vents or the weathering of iron-rich volcanic rocks. In the absence of free oxygen, iron dissolves in water. This must have occurred throughout the Archean, resulting in ocean waters that contained a great deal of dissolved iron. In the Proterozoic, however, the dissolved iron bonded with oxygen released into ocean water by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria to form magnetite (Fe3O4). This magnetite was then deposited on the ocean floor. The alternating layers in banded iron formations are thought to reflect the alternation of oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor conditions on the sea floor.
Thus, the history of Earth’s early crust also tells the story of its early atmosphere. Banded iron formations were precipitated from about 3.1 to about 2 billion years ago—most (92%) during the Proterozoic between 2.5 and 2 billion years ago. Until all the available iron had been deposited in banded iron formations, oxygen could not build up in the atmosphere. Red beds appeared only after free oxygen was released into the atmosphere, beginning about 2.0 to 1.8 billion years ago.”
Proterozoic: Changes in the Earth’s Atmosphere
Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis:
Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
This is not, then, a matter of creating an explanation out of thin air in order to support an a priori assumption but is instead an explanation developed to fit the facts we observe which is supported by numerous lines of evidence.
We are talking about a postulation that begins by saying, since the moon exists and since, because of the laws of physics, it cannot be captured, it must have come from the earth itself. And since such an event would have destroyed the atmosphere and since there is an atmosphere, there must have been enough internal gasses to replenish the atmosphere.
Sure the crust has large amounts of silicates. . .but then so does the upper mantle, so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be plenty left over after the upper layers of earth were blasted out into space. Furthermore, if such an impact occurred the sheer kinetic energy would have resulted in a molten planet, in which case I don’t see why heavy molten metals would have denied physics en masse and migrated to the surface.
Because the force neccesary would have cracked the core and we would have a giant rust belt covering at least a fifth of earth's surface.
Yes I realize how tiny the earth is within the space of the solar system, and yet we have thousands of impact craters all over the earth that prove we do get hit by lots of stuff from space. . .in fact according to your view we get hit by stuff all the time seeing as you have to cram all those impacts into 6,000 years.
Actually, we have very few.
No, I don’t at all see why the sun’s gravity should prevent ejected material from earth in a rapid and close-earth orbit to form the moon. Perhaps you are privy to data which scientists are not? Care to share it? I’m sure NASA would be thrilled.
Because everything is either moving away of moving toward the earth. Every satellite that we have put in orbit has degration. Even the moon is moving away. You are proposing millions of pieces of rocks in a stable orbit for millions of years. If it is far enough out to not fall back then the sun's gravity would be enough to either slow it enough to fall bakc or to pull it toward the sun.
Which is why I said that we already have objects with a
relatively stable orbit. The moon is massive enough that when enough material collected together under the force of their own gravity the pressure generated re-melted and formed into the only shape possible for a molten body with a strong center of gravity – a sphere. Currently the moon is receding as well as slowing the rotation of the Earth due to tidal drag.
You mean beside the experimental data mentioned in the first line of the paper I provided? If there is a structural preference there doesn’t need to be a strong environmental preference.
If the dominance was 80/20 perhaps, but nearly 100%, I don't think so. The fact is that the more leaps from chemical to biological, the more likely that life would survive. As it is, the original leap would have left behind half of its potential, making it more likely to have been a one time event rather than an ongoing normative process.
No, evolution is descent with modification, there is no assumption of upward complexity. Increased diversification is a product of spreading populations interacting with diverging environments.
Tell me one example where evolutionist would see a downward movement in complexity.
That would be Lamarckism, not evolution. Evolution is driven by random variation within genomes prior to birth, not the environmental conditions into which individuals are borne. Yes, those environmental conditions will help to determine whether or not an individual is adapted to survive, but the adaptations themselves are already present, irregardless of environment.
I gave you one instance where evolution could go two ways: Amphibians to air breather or amphibians to water breather. So which is the most likely scenario? Since amphibians lay their eggs in water, the second is more likely by far. Otherwise you must have two events--the pre-birth anomaly of air-breathing from birth and the accidental placement (and survival) of the eggs on dry land.
No, the theory of evolution explains the general trend of increased complexity, it does not “demand” it. So what if frogs have more genetic material than us? Not only is that not actually true, but it doesn’t actually matter. As far as I know only one amphibian has had their genome sequenced (the African frog, Xenopus tropicalis), and it has less chromosomes and less genes than humans,
Uganda clawed frog, 7.8 times. Not that this specific example is important, but it shows that complexity is an illusion, yet "scientists" consistantly build evolutionary models according to that illusions, arranging the evolutionary events from simple to complex.
“The X. tropicalis genome, which contains more than 20,000 genes – humans have about 23,000 – is of particular interest to Harland, who is part of a small community of scientists studying this frog in addition to its larger cousin, X. laevis. The frogs take up less room and have a shorter lifecycle – as little as 4 months instead of a year or more – while their smaller eggs are still relatively easy to manipulate and inject. The sequence will speed up the adoption of X. tropicalis for genetic studies in addition to developmental and cell biological studies, he said.”
Irregardless, however, the net amount of genetic material is not synonymous with increased complexity. Nor is it an issue for the ToE.
I really don’t see what you’re going for here, we’ve already observed that things can evolve new and beneficial traits. No, man is obviously one of the best adapted species due to our very complex brains which make us excellent at making tools and, as a result, there is no species known that has spread to as many different environments as us.
But not because we adapted. Rather we used technology. Naked, unsheltered and untooled, we die in most environments. Normally, we make tools.
Here’s one explanation,
The origin of the moon is now commonly believed to be the result of a Mars-sized object that impacted the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. This impact put a large amount of material into Earth's orbit that ultimately compacted to form the moon. The lunar magma ocean that is thought to have formed at some point during the compacting process, began to cool. During this cooling, water either escaped or was preserved as hydroxyl molecules in the crystallizing minerals.
Previous studies found evidence of water both on the lunar surface and inside the moon by using respectively, remote sensing data from the Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan-1 and other lunar sample analysis. Carnegie researchers looked within crystalline rocks called KREEP (K for potassium; REE, for rare Earth elements; and P for phosphorus). These rocks are a component of some lunar impact melt and basaltic rocks.
"Since water is insoluble in the main silicates that crystallized, we believed that it should have concentrated in those rocks," said Andrew Steele of Carnegie and co-author of the report. "That's why we selected KREEP to analyze."
NASA - Research Suggests Water Content Of Moon Interior Underestimated
Still no explanation why the microwaves have not dissipated them, even in the polar craters.
Enjoy.
Lurker