Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

if someone would like a scientist's vesrion of "soup" do check out
---> lynn margulis & dorian sagan:
_microcosmos_



(youl'll be glad you did...)

 

oh, and a fascinating aside about "early earth"


during the formation of the early solar system, it is believed by planetary scientitsts that the ancient earth had an ocean of liquid water, but no moon...
when the locally cosmic collision which generated our lovely luna occurred, the impact body crashed into the earth & sorta "plopped out" a nice spheroid of rather liquid planetary matter, which became our moon (the incredible heat of the collision of course instantly volatilized the oceans into steam) & the earth had to cool down (again) to the point at which "terrestrial" water, & "infalling volatiles" could again exist in liquid state...


pretty neat, huh?

 

Grnm,,,,

You know very well there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone'.

The best scientific explanation (in the words of Evolutionists even) is that the Moon is an Illusion.
That is how unsatisfactory any other explanation turns out to be.

You gave the impression that 'Planetary Scientists' as a whole endorsed that old theory .. and mistakenly gave the impression that its 'acceptable' when in fact its better described as 'The Least ridiculous but still unworkable' Hypothesis.

Even though the Moon forming or not has nothing to do with explaining why Soup would Morph into a Bird - Its pretty interesting.

Genesis says the Moon was deliberately 'put' there by ID for lighting at night and for seasons and dates.

Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive.

Even more interesting - if it wasnt just about precisely where it is - it would work against life on Earth.

Mind you.. Grrm Planetary Scientists seem to believe the Moon could be nearly touching the Earth (or the huge blob of matter it was) and somehow this didnt interfere with Blobs of Stew mating and generating offspring with Eyes and forming tails and eventually Morphing into Teradactyls and such.

Here is some Scientific Info on the Moon:
http://www.trueorigin.org/moonjs.asp

 

"Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

You are insane, Brocktoon. Who are you trying to convince? -- yourself?


Why didn't God create another star [diminished in size] to supplement the Sun's abilities at night? That certainly would be more efficient. For that matter, why didn't God create more habitable systems in general. Those which would create our temporary stay here on Earth a little more comfortable? Assumably by this whole creationist moon theory (and mainstream Judeo-Christian theology) that is clearly his intention. Omnibenevolence, no?

What is the purpose of moons orbiting other planets? To aid in the progressive life on those planets?--Such would be intuitive [by your standards]. What, in fact, is God's purpose for all of these other planets? For our amusement? To show off his glorified omnipotence?

No doubt your arguement will be "thats just how it is". Interestingly, your arguement against evolution, conversely, is typically just that [how could it just happen?], although, unfailingly you take the proposition out of context. You scrutinize scientific theory endlessly, but when it comes to your beliefs you can settle with "God just put it there." Why do your standards suddenly drop?

 

"You know very well there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone'."

Christ! To begin with, "it being 'Put there' by 'someone'." is NOT, repeat NOT a rational explanation. It is begging the question, mr bush.
The hypothesis offered by grnm are far more detailed than your simplistic declaration of a secret "someone".
Remember, your messianic complex is NOT evidence- no god like proclamations of a new version of the Unkowable Truth, if you please.

"The best scientific explanation (in the words of Evolutionists even) is that the Moon is an Illusion."

Since you speak for the "evolutionist", I guess that makes me spokesmen for your side.

Annis,1:26, "And Jesus said unto the Lord, 'How so shall we banish ignorance from the mind of the most witless of my followers? Those who count fantasy and ignorance among the noblest of pursuits? For they are often bent to lies of word and to falsify the words of others.
Annis,1:27, "And thusly God answered his child, "You can fool all of the people for some of the time; and you can fool some of the people for all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people for all time."

"That is how unsatisfactory any other explanation turns out to be."
???????????????

"Even though the Moon forming or not has nothing to do with explaining why Soup would Morph into a Bird - Its pretty interesting."

You fool!
If you understood how the moon may have aided evolution on earth, you might put that together with the low-probability of lunar formation and had a small part of the argument you THINK you have now! Jah!

"Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

Please recant this idiocy, least I have to point out the ignorance.

"Even more interesting - if it wasnt just about precisely where it is - it would work against life on Earth."

This is an argument for the 7,000 year-old earth, funde. Your true colors emerge-you're still the same old ignorant bible thumper, juice.

The creationist anti-argument (seems appropriate, as they offer no positive evidence for thier mania) here boils down as usual; he wants a mathematical description of the evolution of the earth-moon system.
Well, there isn't one-yet!

So I ask- YOU show a rigorous proof for "theory' of creation.

And-

"Once I saw beneath the stair
A little man who wasn't there..."

- won't cut it.

 

HAHAHAHAHA How rational...

This is the "evidence' for your theory, yet you cannot seem to accept that there is evidence for evolution?

I think most of us believe that the moon is really there...

Well that definitely tops your "there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone". But I promise you that science won't bother with unworkable theories. And they aren't unworkable just because you don't like them, or can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept of a world without a god.

I'm not sure how valid that comment is, but assuming it is correct, why does that work against the theory of evolution? Everything on this planet has been just about perfect conditions to nurture life. That's why we have developed life here, and why it likely hasn't developed in any other planets in our solar system or universe in general. What would be more proof of a god creating us is if we lived on a planet like Mercury, or somewhere that would normally be impossible to nurture life without a devine being's intervention.

 

"Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

"I'm not sure how valid that comment is..."

It's completely invalid.

The Universal Law of Gravitaion MATHEMATICALLY states that the moon is now, and has been, receeding from the earth at a known rate. It is only during this particular piece of history that the moon has been so near the apparent size of the sun.

In the astronomically-near future, the moon will no longer totally eclipse the sun.

As for needing moonlight to survive, I fear brocktoon has betrayed a secret- he's afraid of the dark!

 

He said 'descended from soup', which I would choose over the words you appear to be trying to put in his mouth. If ascended was his meaning, great, but even so, I find it very presumptuous of you to 'correct' him. His words may be exactly what he meant, and he has my full support either way, as that is his reality, and not for me to judge...........hint hint.

Of course the complexity increases. Was the first car a F1 race car?

 

The dark is good.....it is sacred, infinite, mysterious, and I find it calming. Light is distracting and makes sleeping harder. Brocktoon, those little nite lites are a great idea, just plug em in.

Re: the moon. I have read that it is leaving us slowly, and I thought I read the rate was 14000 k per year, though I am not at all confidant with that speed. Memory is great, recall sucks. I also read that the moons diameter is 400 times smaller than the sun, and it is 400 times closer, hence the exact eclipse thing.
I find it cool we get to see the eclipses like this, as no other periods of time did or will. Na na na na nana.
It would have been awesome millions of years ago though to see this massive moon in the sky, I think.

 

I believe the moon currently receeds at about 1 inch per year.

 

Well, I cannot say that you are a little low on your number, but I think it is low.
If correct, the eclipse phenom is a multi century event, and we are not quite so lucky as I thought.
So I would be off by about 4.3 million % then? Hmm, that is not even close....lol.

 

It receeded faster in the past, and will receed slower in the future. The "multi century event" is really many millenium long.

Still, even a million years stands as nothing next to more than 4 billion.

 

I typed millenial, then deleted it lol.

If .0025% is nothing, then how does a nanosecond stand next to a googleplex to the power of a googleplex millenia? Just goofing around, but I now recall the slowing down point, thanks for the reminder. I might have read that at one point it was only 14 000 k away....who knows?

 

Just so Im clear on this:

According to YOU [Geckopelli] - The Moon was inside the Earth (or at least sitting on top of it) and then started its journey outward?

After all.. IF you buy this idea the Moon is falling away at an inch per year.. calculate backwards and its touching the Earth.

Now thats really interesting since it seems that would destroy all known possibility of life (which you insist was self aware of its need to create more and more complex DNA for itself).

For those too young to have ever seen a total eclipse of the Sun...
The Moon is in front of the Sun and for a brief few seconds.. the two match each other absolutely perfectly on over top of the other.

I just think that is a neat coincidence they are both near perfectly identical in size FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.

[I have to clarify that becuase some MORON will actually think its worth 'correcting' this by pointing out the size difference if we were in space and measuring the objects]

Like an Evolutionists once said "The Best Scientific Explanation is that the Moon is an Illusion"

I dont agree that is the best explanation - but its a runner-up for sure.

 

Always criticizing, yet offering no alternative at all, or any that is any better. come with solutions, not problems. ITs a cinch to criticize.

 

You could not be more mistaken.

MOST of our best scientific conclusions are found by deduction and elimination of previously proposed solutions.
Its Healthy.

In my case.. I have suggested a solution.
The Moon was created in its place.

You might not 'like' it or want it to be true - but - its the BEST explanation based on the facts and after eliminating the impossible.

Please provide your best solution BlackGueard?

Do you believe the Moon was 'Captured' by the Earth.
Thats what a lot of people think.

It defies all known laws of physics and common sense.. BUT.. its often taught in schools as 'Fact' anyway.

 

The 'theory' that God just put the moon there is scientifically improbable. Why do you say it isn't? How exactly did your creator do it?

 

You have given us no evidence besides poor rationality to back up your statement about the moon. IN fact you have given us no evidence beyond poor logic to back up any of your statements. And this whole thread isn't even about the moon as it is the entire theory of evolution.

Besides, how can you criticize other's informative posts on the subject when the best information you present is "the only rational explanation for the moon being there is it being put there by someone"? Seems you don't hold yourself to the same standard as you do the other posters on the forum.

 

Note to Sera:

I will tell you what is evidence and tell you when YOU fail to supply me adequate evidence. (If i feel like it).
Thanks.

.......

Geckopelli 'announced' that the Moon is theoretically receding about an Inch a Year.
He then reckons that (calculating backwards) the Moon was inside the Earth.(presumably he believes this because he wont explain otherwise?)

So for those interested in Moon explanations - Here ya go:

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.
NB: this is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks)—not the actual age.

In anycase.. this doesnt really tell us HOW or WHY the Moon is existing in the first place.
Here are a few stories made to explain it:

Fission Theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.

Capture Theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.
[certainly not a clean orb!]

Condensation Theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.

Impact Theory—the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.

There are many more problems to any of these hypothesis's and at some point they become so impossible that its been a 'half joking' comment that '*The Best Explanation is that the Moon is an Illusion"
Of course that sounds ridiculous but that IS THE POINT.
Its actually MORE believable than Geckopelli's Moon Creation Myth!
Thats how UNSCIENTIFIC his fable is!!
.. and thats EVOLUTIONISTS SAYING THIS!

[*Irwin Shapiro in a university astronomy class about 20 years ago, cited by J.J. Lissauer, Ref. 10, p. 327. Lissauer affirms that the first three theories have insoluble problems.]


Ok and to the MORONS who reply with STUPID comments like "Show us some evidence"...
Dear Idiot .. I watched the Total Eclipse of the Sun and so did MILLIONS.
Think of how DUMBASS you sound 'Demanding Evidence to back up.."
[Looking your way Sera]

Heres how it works:
One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun—it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

Do I need to find pictures and post them?

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/ssu/eclipse_91.jpg

You know what an 'Eclipse' is right?
Ok good.
Yes.. they are the same exact size when seen from here.

You can learn a lot about the Moon ... thanks to one of the most brilliant Rocket Scientists in the History of the Planet including many of the facts Geckopelli has learned (then later misunderstood.. sadly)
Thanks to Creationist Wernher von Braun.
He was the 'Father' of a little Space program called NASA.

 

"You will tell me what is evidence," huh? Getting a little testy, aren't you?

You still haven't supported your moon theory of "it is most rational that it was put there by someone"

please tell me why that is the only reational explanation for it's existance like you said, since this is your evidence as you have so defined it...

You can make fun of all the other theories all you want, but that doesn't give your's any more credibility. Especially since you seem to hold everyone else's evidence to a higher standard than your own.

You are the only person who doesn't seem to realize how much a fool you are making of yourself. I could almost feel embarrassed for you if it wern't so humorous.