If the lower figure is right then that is less time since the last great extinction (KT event). Some biologists argue that right now we are in a mass extinction due to human activity. Thats kind of sad. amoeba trilobites, fish, dinasours, humans, adious life in the known universe.

1) I can see your point here, assuming the gravitational "chain" binding the Earth and moon is continually tugging on the moon, pulling it back from its tendency to be spun by the Earth's tidal resistance. However, one problem remains that Phil Plait apparently hasn't considered. The same reactionary pull returning the moon's spin back as it was would also occur at the Earth, returning its spin to the same speed as well.

2) The quote from Durham University first confirms that the spacecraft would have no net speed increase relative to the planet, but would only change its direction as its path curves while passing. So far this just restates my point that there is no net speed increase, according to today's gravitational theory.

The only remaining comment is the following:

"In the frame where the planet is moving steadily, this is an acceleration."

This statement still offers no explanation at all. It doesn't change anything to say that, relative to the Sun, the entire planet and spacecraft scenario is moving. The same net zero speed increase relative to the planet occurs either way, just with a direction change, as stated. I can zip past a ball sitting still on the ground and say that, relative to me, there is an acceleration to the ball on the ground, but it still doesn't change the fact that the ball is sitting still on the ground. This simply is not an explanation.

The Hyperphysics quote says:

"Planetary exploration vessels like Voyager I and Voyager II made use of propulsion maneuvers which gained energy from the planets and moons they passed."

This is in direct conflict with earlier statements both by Durham University above and by myself in direct reference to the logic of today's gravitational theory, stating that there can be no net speed increase relative to the planet. The spacecraft cannot "gain energy from the planet" to speed off faster than it arrived yet have no net speed increase relative to the planet at the same time.

3) Thank you for setting the record straight on the speed of gravity issue. It is important to acknowledge misinformation whenever it occurs, especially in such a popular public forum with experts speaking, as many people can be misled and the misinformation can propagate and become "fact". Just as shown in the above quotes from Durham University and Hyperphysics, unless challenged, anyone could also say, "Check out this quote from an expert at Astronomy Today stating that gravity is confirmed to travel at the speed of light." Our science is actually filled with such misinformation that is getting copied and quoted to the point where misinformation becomes "established fact", leading to all sorts of ills in our science today.

You said,
1) "Either the Earth's spin and the moon's distance are dynamics that have nothing to do with "gravitational tides", or the moon's spin must be changing due to forceful tidal effects just as the Earth's supposedly is ".

And, in fact, it is. Check out what Phil Plait says about it here:

Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge. Eventually, the Moon's rotation was locked so that it took the same time to spin once on its axis as it takes to go around the Earth. This is why we always see the same face of the Moon! And this happened to the Moon before the Earth because the Earth's tides are so much stronger.

Check out Phil's page there for more information and a detailed explanation.

Next, you said:
2) "draw a planet on a sheet of paper and diagram the spaceship accelerating toward it then decelerating away from it, back to its original speed. Now, move the entire paper along as if the planet (and spaceship) were in motion. This is precisely what the moving planet in orbit would be doing. How does this change anything?"

There's a really good explanation available here, from Durham University, which talks about the different reference frames:

The gravitational interaction conserves energy, too. This means that the passing spacecraft's distant-approach and distant-departure kinetic energies (and hence speeds) are the same relative to the planet.

That is, relative to the planet the craft's distant-velocity vectors have the same length — gravity simply rotates their directions.

In the frame where the planet is moving steadily, this is an acceleration.

Hyperphysics has a good, if brief, explanation requiring some physics background here:

Planetary exploration vessels like Voyager I and Voyager II made use of propulsion maneuvers which gained energy from the planets and moons they passed. Such maneuvers are really elastic collisions where the objects involved never hit each other but are affected by gravity as they approach.

Finally, you said:

3) "It is well known that there was a claim by one set of researchers to the effect that they had verified that gravity travels at the speed of light several years ago. It is also easy to find the counter-claims that rolled in immediately from other scientists, stating that these researchers had no idea what they were talking about and that they have proven nothing."

True enough, the experiment was highly disputed. Experimentally, Einstein's theory has not yet been proven. Nevertheless, most scientists believe the theory to be fact, and we are simply waiting on an accurate experiment. That is not disputed even in the links you provided.

Cheers,
Rebecca

-Rebecca