Show me the intermediate fossils!

"Thank you for that explanation."

You are most welcome.

"There are many other questions...Roche limit... "

Most of the questions you refer to can be cleared up in the typical battery of Physics and Mathematics courses required for an engineering degree. Some of the questions you refer to actually posed incorrectly, using older, out of date information for their basis. For example:

"If the moon spun off the earth - why are moon rocks so different from anything found here?"

We spent a lot of money and went to the Moon to retreive samples. The moon rocks are basaltic, and VERY MUCH LIKE BASALT FROM THE EARTH, with two distinctions: They are VERY DRY, and rocks from the Moon seem to have less "heavy metals" in them. This supports a "collision theory" that a Mars sized planetoid slammed into a somewhat smaller than today Earth, resulting in a fairly large Moon made of mostly lighter, upper mantle material, and a larger Earth. Your question is based on a false premise, as the Moon rocks are more similar to Earth rocks than they are different.

"If the planets spun off of the sun - how fast was the sun spinning?"

No modern astrophysics theory postulates that the Sun "spun" out the planets. Current theory, supported by actual astronomical observations, suggest that planets individually coalesced from a proto planetary disk of material orbiting a new star. Such proto planetary disks have been imaged using Hubble and other high resolution telescopes, along with "cut trails" through them, suggesting that fairly large objects are "sweeping up" material as they orbit. An "accidental" experiment aboard the Space Shuttle with particles in a baggy showed that static electricity could easily "jump start" the process of accretion, when the electrostatic forces are more powerful in thin debris than gravity is. Again, modern theory and observations render the question you pose moot.

"Why are some of the moons spinning in a different direction then other moons around the same planet?"

Collisions, passing body gravitational capture easily account for such things. In fact, such observations point to a violent, disordered and dynamic condition for the early Solar System, much as would be expected if random density conditions of a proto-planetary disk determined planet formation and orbital trajectories.

"...documented human history..."

OK, let's say that I write down a story of an ALIEN ENCOUNTER with a UFO. Let's say I write it down with INCREDIBLE ATTENTION TO DETAIL. Let's say my story of the alien encounter takes place in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I describe the storefront in vivid detail. I describe the Outback Restaurant in the parking lot in vivid detail. I describe the UFO and the Aliens in vivid detail.

You read the story some years later, and say, "Phhhht! I don't believe it." So I take you to the place. There you see the remains of an Outback Restaurant (having closed years earlier to to Obama-nomics). You see the Wal-Mart with the original sign, but the outside is painted a different color. You can see evidence of the original color under the peeling paint. You can see the black top parking lot I described, and cars still use it. I say, "SEE! Here are the Buildings and Parking lot, JUST AS I DESCRIBED THEM! My alien story MUST be true."

You might intelligently ask me, "I see the evidence of the buildings, where is the evidence left by the UFO?"

This line of reasoning (which I bet under this scenario you agree with) is no different than looking at ancient texts of a religious nature. Sure, the buildings and people it descibes seem genuine, but fantastic claims are on much more shaky grounds. Just as it is smart to question the fantastic claim of a space ship in common surroundings, so it is smart to question the fantasic claims made in the story of Noah's Ark, for example.

"...age of Redwoods..."

I have no idea why the age of Redwoods, or tulips or beagle hounds pose any problem with the concept of an Earth that is billions of years old.

I think the dotted lines should be enough proof for anyone that a putative ancestor of whales and hippos had a common ancestor that crawled out the sea and then some of the descendants of that ancestor crawled back into the sea

Sure, that's proof enough. Actually, a little Mayr-esque narrative about whales is ironclad, like this old yarn from Darwin himself:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

It doesn't matter if it's bears or hippos or camels. All you have to do is prefix "I can see no difficulty" or "I can readily imagine that", and presto, there's proof of evolution. A few years ago some evolutionists were saying that camels are the closest relatives of whales. I can see no difficulty in imagining camels as a dry sort of whale, and I can readily imagine whales to be camels who yearned to take to the waves, and so on.

There's a book that compiles Darwin's use of such convincing prefix phrases, among other things: Articles of the Darwin Faith

It is feasible that the differences in the moon rock come from a collision from a planetoid - but evidence of that planetoid should be throughout our earth, or at least in a vast area of the earth where rock should be just like the moon with the exception of the amount of water.
The rotation of Saturn’s moons (in different directions from each other) might have occurred as you have stated.

In that it seems the Redwoods do not die, unless they are cut down, something happened about 4,000 years ago. The Eqyptian and Sumerian histories date back about that time. (I would think that if human history went back much further there would be some record keeping that would have survived.) The rate of the erosion of Niagra Falls points to a similiar time frame. The build up of the Mississippi Delta also seems to confirm the same thing. Why a Cambrian Explosion? Could the effects of the flood at Noah’s time explain these things?
With the rate of increase with the world’s population - there were not many people on the earth a few thousand years ago. With the oceans getting saltier each year the world’s water was pure not that far into the past.
With sea shell fossils on Mount Everest, with poly-strata fossils (where trees remained standing [and dead] for millions of years while rock and soil finally covered it,) and cities under the ocean - in my opinion points to something cataclysmic in the past.
My physics and math in engineering was back in the early ‘70’s; I realize there have been many new discoveries and theories since that time.

Thank you for your time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.