A note from Jason Petersen: This is an article written by Ruby Faraday. She is working on getting her masters degree in astronomy from a private university and is a young earth creationist, we are very proud and blessed to have her and her expertise! Her website is http://iperennial.wordpress.com/. I encourage you to check it out and bookmark it!
Written by Ruby Faraday
Secular science places the age of the Moon at around 4.5 billion years. If we look at the Biblical text closely, we realise that the Moon is three days younger than the Earth (Genesis 1:14). By looking at huge amounts of observational data and understanding the laws of physics, we can easily conclude that the Moon is too young and evolution does not give much information in regards to the anomalies discovered on the Moon. In fact, it only complicates scientific understanding and makes things much worse. If we look at the observational data, we realise that the Moon is much younger than the postulation of secular science.
1. Recession of the Moon.
The Moon is receding away from the Earth at ~4 cm a year. This is due to the tidal effects between the Earth and Moon. During the 19th century, Charles Darwin’s son, George Darwin, used mathematical calculation to postulate how the Moon’s orbit would have evolved from tidal evolution. He is mostly credited for coming up with this idea. However, this idea has a lot of uncertainties as to the way it was measured. Numerous ways are used to measure tidal friction but I will touch mainly on the length of time over the lunar month.
This measurement is done by quantifying tidal deposits that are preserved in rocks. These rocks called tidal rhythmites are said to be billions of years old and are “unbiased” evidence of the oceanic environment. Located in the sedimentary basin, it is postulated that the tidal rhytamites can give an account of tidal periods that were caused astronomically. However, analyses done on this are not straightforward compared to tide and tidal deposits and age measurements. When working of the age of the rhythmites, it gives an age factor of 900 million years. Additional working has to be done to fit the age into an evolutionary paradigm and to give it the age of billion years.
Issues with secular research done in the last decade:
a) Palaeolunar orbital periods.
This method requires a “reasonable” evaluation of the palaeolunar sidereal orbital period. That is to get an estimate of the period it takes for the Moon to complete its orbit around the Earth. This is measured in relative to fixed stars. If we look at Keplers third law,
the square of the period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit.
Formula: P^2 α a^3.
Using the Earth – Moon system, the above formula can be written as:
(Ts/T0)^2 = (a/a0)^3
Where Ts = past lunar sidereal periods
T0 = present lunar sidereal periods
and a & a0 are Earth – Moon distance.
However, by using rhythmite record, we are unable to determine the lunar sidereal orbital period and therefore become depended on other data. It is also brought up that the lunar synodic and sidereal periods are tied to the problem between Sun – Earth – Moon which has been a known issue in astronomy. Secular scientists “believe” that this issue can be understood if there are more good quality tidal rhythimite data.
b) Determining the distance of the “ancient” Earth – Moon
Looking at Kepler’s 3rd law as in section (a), it is difficult to determine the distance of the Earth – Moon in the past. As the Moon moves away from the Earth, it (the Moon) experiences an increase in angular momentum and the Earth starts to slow down causing the length of day to increase. Do note that it is assumed that the length of the year does not change. By using this method, it shows that the gravitational constant (G) could have been different in the past, rendering secular scientist clueless.
Image 1: Recession rate in the past (Theory) (Source: AiG)
Image 2: Current Recession Rate (Source: AiG)
The above diagram illustrates past and present recession rate of the moon. Gravity is the force that keeps the Moon from flying off away into space (seen in line B). By referring to the diagram, it shows that when the Moon is closest to the Earth, it’s gravity has a more stronger pull on the side it is facing. This causes the Earth to “stretch” producing two tidal bulges. If we look at point 1, we can see that the bulge is caused due to the Moon’s gravity. If we were to look at point 3, we can see that the Earth is being pulled away from the oceans.
As we can see, figure 1 illustrates how the recession rate would have looked like in the past. Since the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past, it would have caused larger tidal bulges and a greater tugging force from the Moon as illustrated in point 1, line A. This would have increased the angular momentum causing the Moon to recede at a greater speed. However, tidal bulges are much smaller today compared to in the past. This causes the tugging force and angular momentum to be lesser which gives it a more precise recession rate of 4 cm/year.
The formula below explains the tidal recession rate:
rate of recession (4 cm/year)
r = radius of the moon
dr/dt = rate of change
T = Moon’s maximum age
k = r^6*dr/dt
= (384,401 km)^6 x (0.000038 km/year)
= 1.2 x 10^29 km^7/year
∫0T *dt = ∫0R* (r^6/k)dr
T = R^7/(7k)
By working on the above calculation, we get T = 1.37 billion years. This is lesser that the age of 4.5 billion years which evolution require.
2. Roche limit
The moon was never at the Roche limit because it was placed in the firmament (Genesis 1:17). If we were to equate in billions of years, the moon would have been closer than 18,400 km from the Earth. The Roche limit is the minimal distance where a large satellite can approach the primary planet without being ripped apart by tidal forces. If both satellite and primary body have similar compositions then the limit is ~2 ½ times the radius of the larger body. If this were true then by invoking billions of years into the picture, the tidal forces would have ripped the moon apart causing ring formation like Saturn.
Image 3: Planet’s roche limit (Source: Bloomfield)
Scarps are long steep cliffs or ridges that lie between two areas of land and have variation in elevation levels. Scarps are quite small and it has remained undetected for a number of years due to its size. These scarps have are lobe-shaped and range from sizes of 100 km high and a few kilometres in length. Those that are mainly discovered range up to 10 meters high or lesser.
Image 4: The black dots seen in the image are known as scarps. The white dots are the detected scarps using Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LRO images. (Watters, et al., 2010)
As mentioned previously, evolutionary science places the formation of the moon around 4.5 billion years. Its initial formation consists primordially of molten lava which coagulated over time until all heat sources were no longer present. It is believed that the Moon has been dead for the past 3 billion years. However, the discovered scarps places its age at 100 million years or lesser. This vast age difference contradicts the evolutionary model.
Image 5: Thrusts are formed due to the compression of the Moon’s crust. The thrust pushes a part of the surface on top of the other. Scarps are formed from this process. (Watters, et al., 2010)
There have been increasing number of changes spotted on the lunar surface known as the ‘transient lunar phenomena’ (TLP) which shows of internal Moon activity. These TLPs are said to cover the lunar surface for only a few hours before disappearing. This discourages most of the reporting and some are not reported from fear of being ridiculed. However, these sightings go back to 1000 years ago, to the invention of the telescope and till today. This tells us that the Moon is young, tectonically active, is forming scarps and contradicts the evolutionary timescale and gives novelty to Biblical timescales.
4. Magnetic field
This is one of the most exciting points that baffle evolutionary scientists. If we look at the model for magnetism, the age of billions of years would have completely exhausted the Moons magnetic field. So how do secular scientists invoke billions of years into the model? They come up with theories such as another asteroid would have impacted the Moon, causing it to re-energise the Moons internal fluids. If this were true then it would only re-energise the Moon to ~10,000 years. Still not enough to fit it into the billions of year’s paradigm. They even mentioned about a “fluid dynamo” but later realised that it would weaken fast. Another theory was the precession alignment of the Moon’s core would have been misaligned with the rotational axis of its mantle. The Earth’s gravity would have stirred and caused turbulence within the Moon which generated the magnetic field. But based on science understanding of stirring and fluid motion, this is however, not possible.
There is one way to understand about the Moon’s magnetic field and that is magnetism existed during the formation. During creation, there is a possibility that God created the Earth, planets and even the Moon to have an atomic spin in the same direction. This would have generated the Moon’s magnetic field and would have decayed once the atoms on the moon started to randomise.
The idea of billions of years has forced scientist and the likes to come up with theories such as fission theory, capture theory, condensation theory and impact theory which have anomalies in all of them. They discredit the direct formation by God in order to fit the frame of the evolutionary paradigm. However, it’s not possible for the Moon to be as old 4.5 billion years as postulated by the theory of evolution. By looking at the law of physics and observed incidents such as the moon’s recession, roche limit, scarps and it’s magnetic field, it is easily concluded that the Moon is young and not billions of years.
- Barnes, T.G., Young Age for the Moon and Earth
- Cain, F., 2008, Age of the Moon
- DeYoung, D.B, 2003, Journal of Creation 17, 5
- Henry, J., 2006, The moon’s recession and age, Journal of Creation 20(2):65–70
- Henry, J., 2006, Journal of Creation, 20, 65
- Humphreys, D.R., 1984, CRSQ, 21, 3
- Mazumder, R., & Arima, M., 2005, Earth-Science Reviews, 69, 79
- Roche Limit, <http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/roche_limit.html>
- Sarfati, J., 1998, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39
- Scharringhausen, B., 2002, Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?
- Thomas, B, The Moon’s Latest Magnetic Mysteries
- Thomas, B, What Magnetized the Moon?
- Walker, T., 2011, NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon, Creation 33 (2): 50 – 52
- Walker, T., & Catchpoole, D., 2009, Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18
- Watters, T.R., Robinson, M.S., et al., 2010, Science, 329,936
- Wright, D., 2006, Feedback: Lunar Recession. Does It Support a Young Universe?