Moon theories out the window now too!

[dad]

"The traditional hypothesis is that approximately 4.5 billion years ago there was a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet (named Theia). Most scientists believe that that collision shot a large portion of Earth's metal-poor upper crust into orbit, eventually forming the Moon.

One puzzling aspect of this theory of the Moon's formation, has been that the Moon has a higher concentration of iron oxides than the Earth -- a fact well-known to scientists. This particular research contributes to the field in that it provides insights about a section of the moon that has not been frequently studied and posits that there may exist an even higher concentration of metal deeper below the surface. It is possible, say the researchers that the discrepancy between the amount of iron on the Earth's crust and the Moon could be even greater than scientists thought, which pulls into question the current understanding of how the Moon was formed."
Higher concentration of metal in Moon's craters provides new insights to its origin: New observations could challenge previous theories of how the Moon was formed

 

[Twilight Hue]

I find it fascinating.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fascinating ignorance.

 

[sun rise]

This OP shows how science works and why it's so necessary in our growing understanding. True science requires humility - the ability to say "I was wrong".

For those that have the maturity to live that humility, they have the experience of asking God's manifestation "teach me the truth" through my growing knowledge obtained through the workings of science.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Nothing is "out the window." Another of your over-the-top mischaracterizations of new science.

It doesn't mean that the collision theory is wrong...it means the details may be somewhat different than currently thought. And of course, the new theorizing will have to be reviewed by others, to see if the proposal stands up to closer scrutiny. Normal, everyday science.

 

[dad]

Nothing is "out the window." Another of your over-the-top mischaracterizations of new science.

It doesn't mean that the collision theory is wrong...it means the details may be somewhat different than currently thought. And of course, the new theorizing will have to be reviewed by others, to see if the proposal stands up to closer scrutiny. Normal, everyday science.

By the way, have you any other evidence of the missing body that formed the moon?

 

[dad]

This OP shows how science works and why it's so necessary in our growing understanding. True science requires humility - the ability to say "I was wrong".

For those that have the maturity to live that humility, they have the experience of asking God's manifestation "teach me the truth" through my growing knowledge obtained through the workings of science.

I do not find that a claim that the moon got here in a smash up derby no one can prove to be humility. I find it to be impishly inspired.

 

[The Hammer]

I do not find that a claim that the moon got here in a smash up derby no one can prove to be humility. I find it to be impishly inspired.

That's because you lack humility my friend. Your posts reek not only of an inability to grasp science, but also an inability to even grasp the basic tenets of your faith. You're attempting to try and prove what you "know" as truth, while igoring the actual Truth sitting in front of you. But by all means, continue to post and display all of this for everyone to be able to read on the internet, permanently.

 

[dad]

That's because you lack humility my friend. Your posts reek not only of an inability to grasp science, but also an inability to even grasp the basic tenets of your faith.

I should ask an unbeliever about Scripture, because...?

As for humility, your pretensions to grasp science wreak of something else.

You're attempting to try and prove what you "know" as truth

Not true. I am not even offering a position for debate on my beliefs. This thread pointed out that the imaginary planet named after the Greek mother of the moon, is now facing internal serious questioning from science itself.

, while igoring the actual Truth sitting in front of you.

What truth is in front of us here that you claim someone is ignoring?

But by all means, continue to post and display all of this for everyone to be able to read on the internet, permanently.

OK.

 

[The Hammer]

I should ask an unbeliever about Scripture, because...?

I honestly don't care what you deem appropriate to ask me or not. Your beliefs are of little consequence to me, as mine should be to you. Now when you're ready to understand science (not just mischaracterize it), you know where to find me. Have a good night.

 

[dad]

I honestly don't care what you deem appropriate to ask me or not. Your beliefs are of little consequence to me, as mine should be to you. Now when you're ready to understand science (not just mischaracterize it), you know where to find me. Have a good night.

When you are ready to offer some science on the topic, get back to us. When you are able to show us how your understanding of science is not a mischaracterization of it, get back to us. When you can show that there is something I do not understand about science get back to us.

Until then we are left with your vague pretensions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fascinating ignorance.

Ignorance certainly. Fascinating? I am not so sure about that?

 

[oldbadger]

"The traditional hypothesis is that approximately 4.5 billion years ago there was a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet (named Theia). Most scientists believe that that collision shot a large portion of Earth's metal-poor upper crust into orbit, eventually forming the Moon.

One puzzling aspect of this theory of the Moon's formation, has been that the Moon has a higher concentration of iron oxides than the Earth -- a fact well-known to scientists. This particular research contributes to the field in that it provides insights about a section of the moon that has not been frequently studied and posits that there may exist an even higher concentration of metal deeper below the surface. It is possible, say the researchers that the discrepancy between the amount of iron on the Earth's crust and the Moon could be even greater than scientists thought, which pulls into question the current understanding of how the Moon was formed."
Higher concentration of metal in Moon's craters provides new insights to its origin: New observations could challenge previous theories of how the Moon was formed

Which means............ that God really did create the World in 6 days! Wow!

 

[dad]

Which means............ that God really did create the World in 6 days! Wow!

Well, the predicable fails of science does not mean that other beliefs are true. There are other reasons we know God is true. The fail of cosmo fables just shows that cosmo fables are a joke.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, the predicable fails of science does not mean that other beliefs are true. There are other reasons we know God is true. The fail of cosmo fables just shows that cosmo fables are a joke.

Many planets have moons, and many of these were formed by accretion....... not creation!

It's a tough job to discern how our planets and moons formed and established their orbits at the beginning of the Solar system and we are finding out more by the month........ so for any believers in the 6 day creation to stand by and laugh like loons at each new discovery or decision change is just another exhibition of 'goofery'. .

 

[Native]

"The traditional hypothesis is that approximately 4.5 billion years ago there was a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet (named Theia). Most scientists believe that that collision shot a large portion of Earth's metal-poor upper crust into orbit, eventually forming the Moon.

I don´t think so.

One puzzling aspect of this theory of the Moon's formation, has been that the Moon has a higher concentration of iron oxides than the Earth

This only counts for metals in craters and if these are created from impact, this doesn´t say anything about the factual formation of the Moon as claimed in the linked article.

Several of the other planetary lunar motions shows a so called "locked orbit" as with the Moon which logically points towards a direct birth from their mother planets very early, "approximately 4.5 billion years ago" when the entire Solar System was made from a single molten hot sphere of "gas and dust" from where the planets divided from the coming Sun.

 

[PureX]

If the incoming object contained more iron than the original Earth, there would be no reason to assume that the resulting bodies of accumulated debris (current Earth and moon) would have an equal distribution of materials.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have not gone through the current theories, but what about a capture after a collision - so that you get the Pacific also.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"The traditional hypothesis is that approximately 4.5 billion years ago there was a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet (named Theia). Most scientists believe that that collision shot a large portion of Earth's metal-poor upper crust into orbit, eventually forming the Moon.

One puzzling aspect of this theory of the Moon's formation, has been that the Moon has a higher concentration of iron oxides than the Earth -- a fact well-known to scientists. This particular research contributes to the field in that it provides insights about a section of the moon that has not been frequently studied and posits that there may exist an even higher concentration of metal deeper below the surface. It is possible, say the researchers that the discrepancy between the amount of iron on the Earth's crust and the Moon could be even greater than scientists thought, which pulls into question the current understanding of how the Moon was formed."
Higher concentration of metal in Moon's craters provides new insights to its origin: New observations could challenge previous theories of how the Moon was formed

What does this have to do with religion?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, the predicable fails of science does not mean that other beliefs are true. There are other reasons we know God is true. The fail of cosmo fables just shows that cosmo fables are a joke.

Just because there is new information does not mean the theory failed. Far from it, considering there was no failure in the first place, but rather a refinement made through fact making the theory stronger than ever.