Rev. David Rives — The Moon Is Young

The Drool-o-tron™ startled us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). It had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: How lunar recession disproves evolution. There’s also a sub-headline: “Exclusive: David Rives notes moon’s distance can only be explained by young Earth.” [*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] It’s an exclusive!

Suddenly, your Curmudgeon had an insight. We noticed that the rev seems to be going down the whole list of clunkers in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims, and he’s using the list as arguments for creationism. Sure enough, they have an entry for The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.

Fortified by our new understanding of the rev’s methodology, we clicked on his video. It’s actual title is “Lunar Recession.” As expected, the rev explains to his drooling fans that the Moon is moving away from the Earth a few inches a year. That means it was recently so close to the Earth that it would have either shattered or crashed into us! So the Moon couldn’t have existed as long as those scientists say it has. The universe is young! (He doesn’t explain why he’s assuming a uniform rate of recession, when creationists always dismiss “uniformitarianism” in geology.)

The rev is wearing the same the same outfit he’s been wearing for weeks — a gray bible-boy suit without a necktie. This is getting disgusting. Yes, he’s still the world’s cutest rev, but he really ought to change his clothes from time to time. This video is only two minutes long before the commercial at the end. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Rev. David Rives — The Moon Is Young

  1. Rives appears to have been hanging out in the same tanning salon as The Donald.

    And it is distinctly iffy the way he has, through a small aperture between the curtains, a small telescope aimed not at the heavens but at the apartment complex across the street. Is he performing ‘observational science’ on his neighbours?

  2. These Rives revelations keep coming so fast the astronomy textbooks can’t keep up with all the changes he finding and students get pissed because they have to keep buying new books or at least new errata sheets about one every week!

  3. I thought our Curmudgeon might have picked up on link titlethis recent excretion from the DI’s Klinghoffer–but then I realised, it is too self-parodising to require any further gloss or comment:

    …Seattle’s downtown core, where we work, is awash with the mentally ill homeless. A sadly familiar figure is the man or woman furiously shouting, cursing, and gesticulating at an unseen conversation partner

    At least, the DI is well-placed for recruiting new ‘Fellows’…

  4. I thought our Curmudgeon might have picked up on link titlethis recent excretion from the DI’s Klinghoffer–but then I realised, it is too self-parodising to require any further gloss or comment:

    …Seattle’s downtown core, where we work, is awash with the mentally ill homeless. A sadly familiar figure is the man or woman furiously shouting, cursing, and gesticulating at an unseen conversation partner

    So, Klinghoffer looked in the mirror?

  5. I’m not an astronomer, but ISTM that if the Moon has been steadily moving away from the Earth so that it was that close to the Earth 6000 years ago, then about 2000 years ago the length of the month would have been noticeably shorter. Yet our calendars, Roman and Hebrew and all over the world, use the same length of the month as still works today. AIUI, one can do rather precise calculations from reports of eclipses to see just how different the configuration was in ancient Babylonian and Chinese times. (And don’t observations by people who were there count for real science?)

  6. michaelfugate

    Yes those people were there and developed a perfectly good lunar calendar – observational science – something YECs say they “believe” in – except when they don’t.

  7. longshadow wonders

    Klinghoffer looked in the mirror?

    IIRC, vampiric parasites aren’t reflected in mirrors.

    And self-knowledge was never an attribute of any Creationist.

  8. “Suddenly, your Curmudgeon had an insight”
    Believe it or not, dear SC, immediately after reading the header exactly the same thought occurred to me.

    Just two minutes! Exactly the right format. Because no creacrapper will ever admit that

    “Although it may seem to the casual reader that the Earth-moon system is fairly simple (after all, it’s just Earth and the moon), this is only an illusion. In fact, it is frightfully complicated, and it has taken over 100 years for physicists to generate the mathematical tools, and physical models, necessary to understand the problem.”

    When they had it appeared that “there is no fundamental conflict between the basic physics and an evolutionary time scale for the Earth-moon system.”

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

  9. Mike Elzinga

    Apparently Reeves gets his “science” of the Moon’s orbital recession from Jason Lisle, who gives us his “calculation” here (scroll down to the section “Creation In-Depth”).

    Lisle thinks the rate of recession is given by dr/dt = k/r^6. This is complete nonsense; there is no such “force” that says speed is proportional to the inverse sixth power of distance. And there is certainly no gravitational repulsive “force” that behaves that way.

    The correct calculation involves the transfer of the loss of the Earth’s angular momentum to the angular momentum of the Moon’s orbit. There are two independent measurements that we need to do the calculation: (1) the rate of decay of the Earth’s rotational period is 1.7 plus or minus 0.05 milliseconds per century, and (2) the rate of the Moon’s orbital recession is 3.82 plus or minus 0.07 centimeters per year.

    From these, one can figure out the rate of angular momentum loss by Earth in one year. Transferring this rate of loss to the orbit of the Moon gives precisely the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit to within the measured uncertainties.

    The reason one should use the transfer of angular momentum is because the Earth is spinning within the gravitationally-caused tidal bulge of water on the Earth’s surface. The friction at the interface of the Earth and water produces a torque on the tidal bulge that “twists” the tidal bulge slightly ahead of the Moon’s current position.

    That torque is precisely the same torque exerted on the Moon’s orbit. In the physics of angular rotation Torque = moment of inertia multiplied by angular acceleration. We have all the information we need to calculate the change in angular momentum for both the Earth and the Moon’s orbit; then simply add the loss, in one year, of angular momentum by the Earth to the angular momentum of the Moon’s orbit. The change in the Moon’s distance falls out exactly.

    In fact, if all of the Earth’s angular momentum were to be transferred to the Moon’s orbit (this can’t happen once the Earth’s rotation becomes phase-locked with the Moon’s orbital period), the Moon will end up being 1.56 times more distant from the Earth than it is now.

    And, by the way, the height of the tidal bulge has very little to do with the rate of the Moon’s recession. The higher the tidal bulge, the less it is twisted out of alignment with the Moon. The torque is much more determined by the nature of the friction at the Earth/water interface; much like a slipping clutch. The friction means the rate of energy transfer is very inefficient; only about 3.66 percent of the rotational energy of the Earth is being transferred to the Moon’s orbit; the rest is going off as heat into space.

  10. Was there ever a time when physicists were concerned that the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system were incompatible with enough time for evolution? I am aware of Kelvin’s estimates based on thermodynamics.

  11. I don’t think they were able to measure it very well until the Apollo laser reflectors.

  12. The length of a month was known to be about 29.5 days within 0.5 days (< 2%) before 2000 years ago. (How about the Babylonians in 1000 B.C.?)

  13. Doctor Stochastic

    “The Moon is Young” sounds like the title to a Korean love ballad.

  14. Doctor Stochastic says:

    “The Moon is Young” sounds like the title to a Korean love ballad.

    Yes! All I can remember are the first few lines:

    The Moon is young,
    Uranus is old,
    And I’m in love with you.