Lunar Recession>My opponent has misunderstood, the calculations for the recession took place in another source,-https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900016. Citation #61 NOT 60 like my opponent claims that’s where the recession argument took place. The calculations were done by them based off citation 61. My opponent has greatly misinterpreted my source so I will extend my argument. 


My opponent claims that the same interval needs to be used in the data sets, but provides no evidence that that is unreliable. The moon has been on a fixed recession rate for a long time and if

there was anomalies, the equation would prove it and it did. For example, Slichter 1963 (using a simpler Earth-moon model) found that the Moon couldn't have receded from Earth for more than 1.4–2.3 billion years.This fact was presented by the same research group by who made the calculations.{11}Last, unless the rate is unreliable,which my opponent t never claimed it was, it stands. Later research in the 1970-80s improved this model and found that recession could indeed have occurred for 4.5 billion years.


My opponent’s next claim is that varves are misleading and don’t tell about geologic records. Varves are reliable 100% as oldearth.com explains:{12}


Even at a rate of one per day, that is still more than 50,000 years worth of varves, which is much too long for the 6,000 to 10,000 year old young earth theory.The Lake Suigetsu varve record is 45,000 years, and it is consistent with other dating techniques, such as carbon dating and the tree ring record”


Main Point:Many Methods are used to calculate the age of something.


The next point made by my opponent is that he uses 2 evidence to prove that the moon would recede, his first point is that the tidal bulges and the Earth’s rotaion combines to make a fater receding moon,HOWEVER this is completely overriden- by the past increased orbit speed of the moon.


According to Kepler's laws, the lower the distance between Earth and Moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. This means that the Moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was much closer to Earth. Therefore the frequency of the tides was lower, because the difference of orbit time and the time of the rotation of the earth was lower (even if rotation was faster, because the relative time change of earth rotation is less than relative orbit time change of the Moon). Energy dissipation and the drag force on the Moon are dependent on the tidal frequency and the tidal strength, but even if the tidal strength was larger due to the closer Moon, the effect of the lower tidal frequency prevailed. This simply means that the Moon receded even slower in ancient times. E.g. in the extreme case when Earth and Moon are corotating, i.e. the Moon is so close that it circles the Earth in exactly the same time as the Earth revolves, the frequency of the tides would be zero, as would energy dissipation and drag force. The Moon would not recede at all, although the tides (which would then rather be permanent deformations of the Earth, being always at the same place) would be very high because of the close Moon.”{13}


Next the inverse square law. I would like to extend my argument above about tidal bulges rebuttal becuase it is the same thing. The moon soun faster which has consequences and overrides these arguments. 


The fatal flaw your talking about has fatal flaws. Parameters was not debunked to be proven unreliable by my opponent like he claims. My opponent has contradicted himself as well, he claimed earlier-


“There are actually two reasons the moon moved FASTER in the past!”


But then goes on to say


That isn’t even considering the fact that the moon’s recession rate has SPED UP”


So is it slowing down or speeding up,this flaw in my opponents argument can go un-noticed.

My opponent has failed to fit his fatal flaw argument into his thesis or his argument


“If we assume that this rate was constant for about 4,600,000,000 (4.6 bn) years (the accepted age of the Earth and the moon), the moon would have moved about 17,572,000,000 cm,[ or about 45.7% of the total distance] and about 48.0% of the distance to the Roche limitAnd finally, if we assume that this rate was constant, it would take about 10,000,000,000 (10 bn) years for the moon to touch EarthThus, it is definitively proven that, if we assume that the rate is constant, then this is no evidence for Young Earth creationism.”{13}


So no, the moon can be in orbit for 4.6 billion years and my opponent has contradicted himself.


That’s all of my defending arguments. My part is done.Thank you


Conclusion:That was a good debate christopher_best. I had fun, and look forward to your defense, Vote Pro! 


Sources in comments Post # 47