>Anyway, Barnes nowhere gives any calculations in the _Impact_ articles,
>and I bet he doesn't in the _Acts and Facts_ article either.
>
I looked up the _Acts and Facts_ article in the book _The Battle for
Creation_, ed. H. Morris and D. Gish. (Creation Life Publishers 1976), p.
230-238. This book is a reprint of all the Acts and Facts up to that time.
Barnes does not give any calculations but he also does not deal with the
moon's recession here. He deals with the spin and shape of the earth.
Apparently Kelvin argued that if the earth had been here for 7.2 billion
years, the earth's days would have been 12 hours long. This would bulge the
earth's equator 86 km more than the pole. Kelvin argued that if the earth
solidified at this time, the shape of the earth should still show that
shape.(The "centrifugal" force would cause an 86 kilometer bulge which would
be frozen in place. Today the lessened "centrifugal" force can only bulge the
oceans 21 km greater at the equator.) As the earth's rotation slowed down over
the next few billion years the oceans should have settled into two oceans, one
at the north pole and one at the south pole. The greater crustal bulge would
today split the oceans. Because this hasn't happened, Barnes and Kelvin
concluded, the earth has not been here for billions of years.
The problem with the argument is that the earth has never solidified! Kelvin
did not know about radioactivity when he performed this calculation. Without
radioactivity, the earth would solidify relatively quickly. But in 1896
Becquerel discovered radioactivity and the heat given off by radioactivity,
has kept the earth's interior in a plastic to molten state ever since. Thus,
even if the earth rotated that rapidly, as the earth slowed down, the shape of
the earth would adjust and there would be no implication of a northern and
southern ocean. The equatorial bulge would shrink as the rotation slowed down.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm