RESPONSE: Galileo rout: Galileo rout
The referenced page is just absurdly incorrect and a very simple thought experiment will demonstrate this very clearly.
The orbital circumference of the moon1 is 2,413,000,000 meters, and the average orbital velocity is 1022m/s, dividing circumference/velocity gives us ~27.327 days2. This is how long it actually takes the moon to go ALL THE WAY around the Earth in its orbit.
But when we observe the moon it appears to go all the way around the Earth every single day, it doesn't take 27.327 days! If the Earth were NOT rotating then we would see the moon only move 1/27.327th of the way across the sky in a 24 hour period.
So the hypothesis proposed is clearly and demonstrably false.
The moon doesn't actually go all the way around of course, it just appears to. In actuality, it really does only move 1/27.327th of the way around. The additional apparent motion is due to the rotation of the Earth.
Where did he go wrong? Well, you cannot simply subtract the two velocities because they are at different distances from the center of rotation. Simply stated, the moon has to go much further, than the surface of the earth has to go around. So even though we're rotating at ~1/2 the velocity3, we zip around and around and around (27 times) while the moon only goes once around the Earth.
This guy is either lying about the facts on purpose or he was lying about his knowledge and ability with orbital dynamics. Either way he is bearing false witness. This guy, who is so desperate he would lie to protect his beliefs, and others like him paints Christians in an extremely poor light. Us "non-believers" see this same pattern of dishonesty over and over.
1 the actual value varies somewhat due to the slight eccentricity (0.0549) of the orbit, see the Wiki page on the Moon
2 do not confuse with the anomalistic, sidereal, tropical, draconic, or synodic orbital periods; all of which have different definitions and values
3 near the equator, near the North or South poll there is almost no rotational velocity at all; which is another factual error in his assertions