> Moon Recession
>
> As tidal friction gradually slows Earth's spin, the laws of
> physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley
> first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began
> orbiting near Earth's surface, the Moon should have moved to its
> present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than
> the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and
> Moon.

> Fascinating. Care to show us the  calculations you used to come to
> this most unusual  conclusion of yours? I'd be  most interested to
> see how you arrived at such figures.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
> --
> EAC Memographer
> BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
> ``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

> Moon Recession
>
> As tidal friction gradually slows Earth's spin, the laws of physics
> require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed
> this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth's
> surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth
> in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age
> evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system
> must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.
>
> Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar
> System, and Universe Are Young.
>
> For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by
> evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15
> years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of
> 100!
>
> Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old ...

> Ben Goren wrote:
>

>> Fascinating. Care to show us the calculations you used to
>> come to this most unusual conclusion of yours? I'd be most
>> interested to see how you arrived at such figures.

>
> Ever hear of the phrase "When monkeys fly out his ass?
> From the same place

>Anyone else see some strange disconnect between citing unestablished
>and mostly unaccepted cosmological and geological hypotheses and
>"disproving" an unrelated and well-established theory from the field
>of biology?

> Since I didn't bother reading Pahu the Troll's idiotic nonsense (and
> have long since deleted it), I'm curious as to what "unestablished and
> mostly unaccepted cosmological and geological hypotheses" those might
> be.

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:37:23 -0800 (PST), sir_roko2
>
> yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Anyone else see some strange disconnect between citing unestablished
>>and mostly unaccepted cosmological and geological hypotheses and
>>"disproving" an unrelated and well-established theory from the field
>>of biology?

>
> Since I didn't bother reading Pahu the Troll's idiotic nonsense (and
> have long since deleted it), I'm curious as to what "unestablished and
> mostly unaccepted cosmological and geological hypotheses" those might
> be.