I'd have to crack open the old physics textbook for the math but I can say with absolute certainty that the moon orbiting close enough to scrape mountain tops (and I presume that the idea is that the moon was headed away from the core of the earth by that "inch farther" comment):
(1) Defies G. The moon would have have to be repelled by the earth - the Gravitational Force would have the two bodies attract and merge. Moreover, the tidal forces of a body as large as the moon orbiting "at mountain top level" would have played merry havoc with the integrity of both bodies. Also, the velocity of the moon would have been vastly higher that close to the surface. As a rough guess I'd anticipate that both would be molten, the entire physical structure of both would twist like taffy and the atmosphere would have been torn away. (What mountains could survive a molten planet?)
(2) Spacecraft aren't alive. They all lack knowledge.
(3) http://www.newscientist.com/arti...le.ns?
id=dn4422
I believe that an invisible, intangible brain-sucker has attached itself to Tom McVeety and it is in the process of consuming him. This editorial is proof enough for my faith in brain-suckers.
I can answer the first question!
With the current mean distance of 238,855 miles which works out to 15,133,852,800 inches, and subtracting 348,336 inches (the height of Mt. Everest) puts the moon at 15,133,504,464 inches from the highest mountaintop. Just to be generous, lets say the moon moves away 1.5 in/yr. Then the moon would have been scraping the top of Mt. Everest a mere 10,089,002,976 years ago. You got a problem with that?
For item 1, see http://www.talkorigins.org/index...c/CE/
CE110.html
As you can see from the link, this is yet another recycled creationist claim. Nothing new here, and demonstrates the credulity of said "reporter" for that paper.
Same for item 2. See http://www.talkorigins.org/index...c/CE/
CE231.html
To his credit, item 3 is 'new', just not a problem for an old universe model, as is shown in the link given in the post above.
Cheers.
The "moon" argument made me snort. Another Algebra brain in a Calculus universe...
I love how McVeety can't distinguish between astronomy and biology, yet fancies he has the scientific chops to disprove evolution. Kind of like the twit in the local paper who referred to the so-called claims of "Evolutionary Geologists".
So, because some kids are orphans, that means they spontaneously generated? What? Was it the stork? Huh?
*Gulps coffee*
Using Algebra to explain a Calculus universe is an appropriate observation, as is the point that the op-ed writer is asking questions leading to a pre-designated answer.
Neither approach makes for good science, but it works as facile rherotic, and can be persuasive to a mind pre-conditioned to accept the pre-designated answer.
I think it should be M42 not M22. M22 is in Sagittarius and it is a globular cluster not a nebula. Just a nit; probably a typo?
...No, I have no problem with the moon having been a heck of a lot closer to the earth. Apparently that explains why we'd be a binary planetary system, unlike every planet we've seen.
...Wha? I don't even understand his argument in #2. How can you say 'too much' if you don't even know the method by which the heat is stored?
...Who cares if planet-sized stars can form on their own, how does that even have anything to do with any of the other arguments?
Ugh, that hurts my head.
Crissa,
The Sun and Moon ARE the primary engines of our weather. If the Moon was closer you would long for the days that Al Gore warned you about...as the good old days.
Tides - water responding to the gravitational pull of the moon...... heard of them?
The failure to comprehend non-linear effects is at the root of a lot of pseudo-science whether it's this moon nonsense or some lunatic ranting that global warming isn't real.
Sometimes I wonder if differential equations and calculus should be required high school math and not left to college (and then only taught to science majors). It would shock most Americans to realize just how *little* of their world actually follows the "I get paid a hundred dollars a week so in four weeks I'll have four hundred dollars" logic that they think rules the world.
Rabble indeed. Maybe even dribble.
Last comment in regards to the dribble coming from creationists minds.
I'm just glad I don't live in Evansville.
George: I wasn't here 5 billion years ago, so it really doesn't matter to me that the planet was molten at the time or that we didn't have the moon moderating our motion.
We evolved to fit into this niche, but there was nothing to stop us from evolving into a different niche, given the proto-life's ability to spring from what would be very hostile conditions!
It doesn't matter to me where the moon /was/, although it is interesting, and lets me know where it might go. Doesn't stop us from intervening, though.
"Another Algebra brain in a Calculus universe..."
That's funny. I can't wait to slip that into conversation soetime soon!
The comments to that op-ed piece are interesting. I especially like this one:
Posted by hoosier812 on July 17, 2007 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fossil record does not support evolution. There are no half ape, half men in the fossil record. Why not? Because we didn't come from apes, that's why. (Although some people I know act like apes)
Sadly, it is all too (stereo)typical of people who don't or can't understand how science, especially biology, works.
You flatter me, PiGuy. 
Commenting by HaloScan
