That may have been part of the original motivation, but I didn't see any indication of that attitude in the few resources I checked. The position seems to have come from examination of the evidence, since nothing in the Judeo-Christian worldview requires that all (or even most) DNA be useful.
I did see numerous sources where evolutionists, however, strenuously denied that there could be any purpose to "Junk DNA", for two main reasons. Firstly, it seemed to be an effective apologetic for them, related to the discredited "vestigial organs" argument, which, even in its heyday, had only emotional value. (This is for two reasons: 1, It is impossible, even in principle, to state that a given organ or stretch of DNA is useless -- one can only say that no purpose has been discovered, yet; and 2, Even if an organ or some DNA was useless, this would only make the creationists' point that we have lost capabilities since the Fall of Adam, and would adduce no evidence that naturalistic processes can add information.) Secondly, a genome as large as ours with the mutation rate we have would suffer "error catastrophe" in the millions of years we've supposedly been around if all of that DNA was purposeful.
What annoys me with the whole evolution debate is that it's obvious the creationists have never bothered to look at the data. The proof of evolution is so compelling that it's like a brick to the side of the head. They're advocating their ignorance in a state of perfect ignorance.
Creationists have been predicting for many years that so-called "Junk DNA" was no such thing, while evolutionists said that it had to be junk, or error catastrophe would have set in long ago. Now that the creationists were shown to be right, you think they're the ones that "never bothered to look at the data"?? Amazing.
Hardly! This is not a "God of the gaps" claim -- that's for ppl who don't really know what they are talking about.
This is not some exotic calculation or weird interpretation -- it falls right out of known laws of physics. To have any explanation of the Moon that says it's been here more than 1,500 million years, you have to deny either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of angular momentum. Take your pick; it's not pretty either way.
It is, of course, consistent with a special creation event within the past few thousand years, as described in the Bible, but it does not prove it.
> So how come many scientists think the Earth-Moon system is 4.5bn years old? Maybe they just haven't done the math.
>
>Or maybe they're just way smarter than you?
That's quite possible! But the math doesn't change based on one's level of intelligence. Next time, maybe you can address the actual argument, instead of resorting to a silly ad hominem attack.
Now, if I had claimed that my superior intelligence led me to some new discovery, then questioning my intelligence would be an attack on my credibility, and somewhat justified. But I didn't.
There is nothing novel in what I posted. The consequences fall right out of the equations of motion & gravity, along with the actual physical situation. For those interested in the actual calculations: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/mo on.asp#r8
Moving away at its current speed, it would have taken 10bn years to move from the Roche limit to its current position. (In rough figures: 4*(10^8)m / (0.04m/year) = 10^10years)
But the moon is drifting away due to tidal effects. So it would have been drifting faster in the past. Taking that into account, the MAXIMUM possible time the Moon could have been orbiting earth is less than 1.5bn years.
So how come many scientists think the Earth-Moon system is 4.5bn years old? Maybe they just haven't done the math.
Slashdot Mirror
That may have been part of the original motivation, but I didn't see any indication of that attitude in the few resources I checked. The position seems to have come from examination of the evidence, since nothing in the Judeo-Christian worldview requires that all (or even most) DNA be useful.
I did see numerous sources where evolutionists, however, strenuously denied that there could be any purpose to "Junk DNA", for two main reasons. Firstly, it seemed to be an effective apologetic for them, related to the discredited "vestigial organs" argument, which, even in its heyday, had only emotional value. (This is for two reasons: 1, It is impossible, even in principle, to state that a given organ or stretch of DNA is useless -- one can only say that no purpose has been discovered, yet; and 2, Even if an organ or some DNA was useless, this would only make the creationists' point that we have lost capabilities since the Fall of Adam, and would adduce no evidence that naturalistic processes can add information.) Secondly, a genome as large as ours with the mutation rate we have would suffer "error catastrophe" in the millions of years we've supposedly been around if all of that DNA was purposeful.
Hardly! This is not a "God of the gaps" claim -- that's for ppl who don't really know what they are talking about.
This is not some exotic calculation or weird interpretation -- it falls right out of known laws of physics. To have any explanation of the Moon that says it's been here more than 1,500 million years, you have to deny either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of angular momentum. Take your pick; it's not pretty either way.
It is, of course, consistent with a special creation event within the past few thousand years, as described in the Bible, but it does not prove it.
> So how come many scientists think the Earth-Moon system is 4.5bn years old? Maybe they just haven't done the math.
o on.asp#r8
>
>Or maybe they're just way smarter than you?
That's quite possible! But the math doesn't change based on one's level of intelligence. Next time, maybe you can address the actual argument, instead of resorting to a silly ad hominem attack.
Now, if I had claimed that my superior intelligence led me to some new discovery, then questioning my intelligence would be an attack on my credibility, and somewhat justified. But I didn't.
There is nothing novel in what I posted. The consequences fall right out of the equations of motion & gravity, along with the actual physical situation. For those interested in the actual calculations: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/m
Moving away at its current speed, it would have taken 10bn years to move from the Roche limit to its current position. (In rough figures: 4*(10^8)m / (0.04m/year) = 10^10years)
But the moon is drifting away due to tidal effects. So it would have been drifting faster in the past. Taking that into account, the MAXIMUM possible time the Moon could have been orbiting earth is less than 1.5bn years.
So how come many scientists think the Earth-Moon system is 4.5bn years old? Maybe they just haven't done the math.