30

According to Dr. Thomas G. Barnes the Moon is much younger than claimed by the mainstream scientific community, by many orders of magnitude.

The Giant impact hypothesis, one of the primary mainstream scientific theories on the creation of the moon, says that the Moon is billions of years old.

Dr. Barnes claims that the Moon is far younger than this. While he does not explicitly claim exactly how old the Moon is, I believe that he is implying that the Moon is at most a few thousand years old so that it's age is inline with some creationist beliefs.

Barnes gives 5 reasons why his theory of a Young Moon is correct:

The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied to observed large scale phenomena such as:

  1. The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit
  2. The faster earth spin rate in the past.
  3. The rate of lunar dust build-up.
  4. The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
  5. The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.

The first point "The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit." is sited by others who also claim that the Moon is young.

Conservapedia's article on the Moon states:

Rate of recession

The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year, and is believed by atheistic scientists to be 4.6 billion years old, The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles.

It should be noted that Barnes believes that if the Moon was not young it would be much further away, while Conservapedia is claiming that it would take much longer for the Moon to reach the same position. But both say the Roche Limit and the Rate of recession prove that the Moon cannot be as old as mainstream science claims.

So is this theory of a Young Moon correct?

Does evidence backup their claims?

Must the Moon be much further away if it is billions of years old?

Jonathan
  • 145
  • 7
Mark Rogers
  • 11,324
  • 11
  • 55
  • 71
  • 46
    Any source that uses the phrase "atheistic scientists" when not specifically talking about the religious beliefs of scientists is almost certainly highly unreliable. – David Thornley Mar 31 '11 at 02:46
  • 10
    But even if the rate of recession was constant, 9.6 billion is still greater than 4.6 billion, so the Giant impact theory is not invalidated – Jader Dias Mar 31 '11 at 14:04
  • 19
    I can't really take any site seriously that claims "Atheists cannot explain the Origin of the Moon, despite many failed attempts." – fred May 24 '11 at 20:32
  • fred: as if non-atheists can. – Mike Dunlavey May 24 '11 at 21:53
  • 5
    @MikeDunlavey "God did it, I don't need to explain it any further" seems to be the usual argument. – Shadur Jan 09 '16 at 19:06
  • 9
    "doctrine of evolution" - Yep, that's a creationist alright. Nobody else would use this term. – Sebastian Redl Jan 09 '16 at 23:17
  • 2
    Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon. Given the fact that Arsmtrong died and old man at 83, we can conclude that the moon is even older than Armstrong. – Tulains Córdova Jan 11 '16 at 19:37

2 Answers2

37

A great source for answers to myths like this that keep circulating around is Talkorigins.org.

Some quotes from the moon section:

  1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

  2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).

  3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.

and:

  1. The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

    The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.

Flimzy
  • 15,520
  • 14
  • 63
  • 132
Nthaoe
  • 1,097
  • 8
  • 11
  • 14
    +1 for reporting we can measure year length from 200 m. year old coral. Cool! – Oddthinking May 26 '11 at 06:01
  • Worth mentioning: this doesn't address the Roche Limit issue. Having the moon recede at a rate which matches its actual distance doesn't help against the claim that it would have broken up long before it got there. – Bobson Jan 11 '16 at 10:55
  • Following @Bobson, it also doesn't help that the second point is inconsistent with the first. You would have to make a stronger claim that, "*on average* the moon has receded at about 3.8 cm per year for billions of years" in order for both points to support each other. – jpaugh Apr 26 '18 at 17:43
  • @Bobson True, but Roche limit doesn't tell you at what distance a moon will turn into rings of dust - it's only concerned with gravitational effects. In real-life, planets and moons are also held together by electromagnetic forces, which means the real minimum distance is much closer. Roche limit tells you the distance at which a moon couldn't *form* from a ring of debris. Of course, if the Moon were in within the Roche limit (it most likely never was), dust probably wouldn't accumulate on its surface, so one argument defeats the other anyway. – Luaan Aug 09 '18 at 06:49
  • @Luaan Given that the moon does not have a magnetic field, how would there be any electromagnetic effects on it? Also, the [Roche limit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit) is static. It applies to both formation and destruction - satellites can’t form within it *and* any that enter it are ripped apart. – Bobson Aug 09 '18 at 11:31
  • @Bobson I mean less "action at a distance", more "rocks aren't held together by gravity". Compare how easy it is to lift a 10 kg rock from the ground compared to tearing it apart. Roche limit says that the tidal force is exactly equal to the gravitational force that holds the satellite together - that doesn't make rocks split apart. You'd lose the covering (moon dust, Earth dirt...), but you need to get quite a bit closer to tear the *solid* stuff apart. – Luaan Aug 09 '18 at 12:46
  • @Luaan Rocks aren’t held together by electromagnetism either. The Roche limit is the line where the two forces are exactly equal. If the satellite is inside the limit, even partially, then the tidal forces from gravity in that portion vs gravity on the rest will pull that piece off. Please go read the Wikipedia article I linked to. – Bobson Aug 09 '18 at 13:14
  • @Bobson Really? What are rocks held together by? Fairies? As for your link, direct quote: `Some real satellites, both natural and artificial, can orbit within their Roche limits because they are held together by forces other than gravitation.` Maybe *you* should read the article. – Luaan Aug 09 '18 at 20:12
  • @Luaan - Let me back up a step. Atoms are held together internally by the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. Atoms are linked to each other via chemical bonds. If you get enough atoms in one place, they start exerting measurable gravity on each other. A small satellite (whether man-made or simply an orbiting rock) is not held together by gravity, and thus isn't subject to the Roche limit. A large satellite, on the scale of a moon (even a small one) *is* at least partially held by gravity and is subject to breakup. The moon is no more a single body than the Earth is. – Bobson Aug 09 '18 at 20:43
  • I will concede that the limit for *a particular body* may be closer in to the planet than the pure-physics calculations would indicate, depending on how rigid the object is. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Roche limit for a body applies to both formation (can't form from rings) and destruction (will be ripped apart into rings). You can't say that a body formed outside it and moved into its limit *won't* break apart, assuming it's large enough to feel tidal forces. – Bobson Aug 09 '18 at 20:48
  • @Bobson It only works both ways if you assume the object is held together *only* by gravity. But exactly for the mass large enough to form a spherical shape, you have more than just a ball of dust - there is some bulk tensile strength. This extra strength moves the real destruction limit closer to the primary, but not the formation limit - that applies to loose material very well. – Luaan Aug 10 '18 at 05:53
12

This link gives a thorough criticism of the "moon dust" argument. The estimate of dust deposit used in these figures is hugely flawed, and better estimates have existed for a long time, but were not used in the Creationist tracts.

Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195