Moon theories out the window now too!

[ecco]

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."

Did you bother to read the entire article? Would you have understood it if you had?

Why did you omit this portion of the article?

It may be possible that the collision with Theia was more devastating to our early Earth, with much deeper sections being launched into orbit, or that the collision could have occurred when Earth was still young and covered by a magma ocean. Alternatively, more metal could hint at a complicated cool-down of an early molten Moon surface, as suggested by several scientists.
​

Golly Gee.

Does the article say that there was no collision? No.
Does the article say maybe God created the moon when He created the heavens? No.

So, really, what is your point? You became aware of a headline that seemingly fit your mindset that SCIENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG THEREFORE SCIENCE IS BAD and you couldn't resist trying to throw a dart. So sad.

 

[dad]

What kind of argument is this? Oh, you´ll have your "god" to have created everything and ignore the term of "formation = creation" - and at the same time ignoring the factual motion in your "argument"?

The kind of argument it is can be shown in one question to you,

"In what way does any object orbiting anything preclude the possibility that it was created that way'?

If I created a planet, with a moon, someone could come along, look at a tiny change in orbit over 20 years, and then extrapolate that to mean that some great event/cause must have happened billions of non existing years ago to make the moon get where it is.

Of course, when one just believe in "god", nothing is needed to be logically and scientifical analyzed.

And if we use scientific principles to analyze an orbit, we need to know when to stop and start applying them. Otherwise you descend into purest belief that is equal to belief in creation, but has none of the proof.

There you go again with your creation = formation.

You would need to show real evidence that something was formed rather than created to pull that one off.

 

[dad]

Why did you omit this portion of the article?

It may be possible that the collision with Theia was more devastating to our early Earth, with much deeper sections being launched into orbit, or that the collision could have occurred when Earth was still young and covered by a magma ocean. Alternatively, more metal could hint at a complicated cool-down of an early molten Moon surface, as suggested by several scientists.​

Once they admit not knowing what they are talking about, the wild conjectures lose significance.

Does the article say that there was no collision? No.

It says the evidence seems to point against the theory basically.

"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."

.."The fact that our Moon could be richer in metals than the Earth challenges the notion that it was portions of Earth's mantle and crust that were shot into orbit. A greater concentration of metal deposits may mean that other hypotheses about the Moon's formation must be explored."

Does the article say maybe God created the moon when He created the heavens? No.

Did you expect it to? Those using a set of specific beliefs would not be expected to abandon them to proclaim foreign beliefs true.

So, really, what is your point?

It speaks to me as being yet another confirmation that science doesn't really know what it is talking about on origin issues.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Medicine has zero to do with origin fables.

But medical advances are all based on the use of the WICKED Scientific Method, which you have SO clearly demonstrated DOESN'T WORK! So PLEASE, help me figure out what to do by telling me what your Magical Book has to say about treating my wife's illness. SURELY you have something to replace stupid science with when it comes to figuring out how disease works. You Magical Book tells us the TRUTH about the moon, so what does it say about the TRUTH of diabetes? PLEASE hurry... my wife isn't feeling very well.

 

[dad]

But medical advances are all based on the use of the WICKED Scientific Method, which you have SO clearly demonstrated DOESN'T WORK! So PLEASE, help me figure out what to do by telling me what your Magical Book has to say about treating my wife's illness. SURELY you have something to replace stupid science with when it comes to figuring out how disease works. You Magical Book tells us the TRUTH about the moon, so what does it say about the TRUTH of diabetes? PLEASE hurry... my wife isn't feeling very well.

No medical device or drug or procedure has anything at all to do with fables about deep space, pretend planets smashing into earth to create moons, or a same nature in the past on earth. Period.

 

[gnostic]

Agreed, but the very idea of the Solar System Formation does discount this:

Quote:
"As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula, collapsed, conservation of angular momentum caused it to rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc. As the contracting nebula rotated faster, it began to flatten into a protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU and a hot, dense protostar at the centre.

The planets formed by accretion from this disc, in which dust and gas gravitationally attracted each other, coalescing to form ever larger bodies. Hundreds of protoplanets may have existed in the early Solar System, but they either merged or were destroyed, leaving the planets, dwarf planets, and leftover minor bodies".
-------------
The Standard Model tries to explain the formation of the Moon with these similar principle motions "when planet "Theia" collided with the Earth", causing lots of debris which again accreted accordingly to this standard model.

If so, the Moon should ALSO have an "angular momentum rotation" of it´s own according to the entire theory, but it doesn´t as this is locked to the Earth, thus strongly suggesting the Moon to have been born directly out from the Earth when this still was "molten hot". And the same goes for other locked moons around other planets.

My conclusions:
Finding more lithium in the lunar meteor craters does not say anything about the formation of the Moon or its connection to the Earth.
The Moon is formed directly from the Earth.
The Standard Model "accretion explanation" of planetary formation doesn´t fit for the Moon. (If anywhere at all).

Relevant links here:
Lunar Theories - Lunar theory - Wikipedia
Orbit of the Moon - Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia

Native, you have to remember that all models to explain the origin of the moon, are still at the “hypothesis” stage, hence requiring more investigation, more research and more evidence.

And that including the Earth-Theia collision model; it is a “hypothesis” only.

None of them are “scientific theory”, so you talking about “Standard Model” is premature.

All hypotheses are still in the running for how the moon formed. While the Theia hypothesis is gaining a large consensus among the astrophysicists and cosmologists, no other hypotheses have been ruled out at this stage.

At this stage, I am neutral about the Earth-Theia collision: I have neither accepted, nor rejected it, because we need more evidence and data that will verify or debunk this model.

What we do know is that the early Earth was frequently bombarded by large objects (asteroids, meteors, comets) during the accretion stage of the Solar System formation. The energy from the impacts led to the primitive crust being melted or molten state.

Could Theia be one of those impacts?

Probably...probably not...we don’t know.

Could the Earth capture the moon in its oribit?

Again, probably...probably not...we don’t know.

The fact is, we may never know.

I think dad doesn’t understand what he is reading...and one thing is certain, he doesn’t understand the concept of scientific method and falsifiability.

This thread is nothing more than another anti-science propaganda and rantings by someone who don’t understand the concept of verifiable evidence.

 

[gnostic]

You could never prove Adam was symbolic rather than real. Nor can you support your origin of the moon fables.

The very fact, that man and woman required copulation before conception, pregnancy and birth to occur, and have been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, is indication that natural reproduction are the sources for all newborn babies.

You were born through natural causes, eg your father impregnating your mother. You weren’t born from dust. And you weren’t born as adult. Only deluded superstitious people would believe that dead dust can turn into living adult man.

There are no evidence whatsoever that adult human can be made from dust, soil, clay or rocks, so Genesis creation of Adam from dust, is nothing more than a myth.

It is you, who have no evidence.

Your superstition speak volumes of your utter ignorance, and your predictable EVASION to produce evidence of supernatural cause (eg turning dust into man) speaks volumes of your dishonesty.

Can you honestly deny that natural reproduction and childbirth don’t happen?

 

[Native]

"In what way does any object orbiting anything preclude the possibility that it was created that way'?

I told you that in reply #59 and you have to read the standard model explanation vs my explanation in order to understand this.

And if we use scientific principles to analyze an orbit, we need to know when to stop and start applying them. Otherwise you descend into purest belief that is equal to belief in creation, but has none of the proof.

And if you ignore the scientific explanations you´ll end up in pure beliefs.

You would need to show real evidence that something was formed rather than created to pull that one off.

"Formed" or "created" is in principle the same too me.

 

[dad]

The very fact, that man and woman required copulation before conception, pregnancy and birth to occur, and have been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, is indication that natural reproduction are the sources for all newborn babies.

Adam and Eve were not babies. And your false dates are less than worthless.

You were born through natural causes, eg your father impregnating your mother. You weren’t born from dust. And you weren’t born as adult. Only deluded superstitious people would believe that dead dust can turn into living adult man.

Says you. Like you know what God can do?!

There are no evidence whatsoever that adult human can be made from dust, soil, clay or rocks, so Genesis creation of Adam from dust, is nothing more than a myth.

Or not. But when a man lame for forty years can get up and walk and jump for joy, that is evidence God can raise the dead. When Jesus was dead for days and rose again to be seen by over 500 people, that is evidence God can raise the dead. Lazarus also, and others. You cannot limit the Almighty by your mind and small imagination.

Your superstition speak volumes of your utter ignorance, and your predictable EVASION to produce evidence of supernatural cause (eg turning dust into man) speaks volumes of your dishonesty.

You calling Scripture dishonest speaks volumes of yours.

Can you honestly deny that natural reproduction and childbirth don’t happen?

Why would it not happen since God not only set it up that way but commanded we reproduce?!

 

[Native]

Native, you have to remember that all models to explain the origin of the moon, are still at the “hypothesis” stage, hence requiring more investigation, more research and more evidence.
And that including the Earth-Theia collision model; it is a “hypothesis” only.
None of them are “scientific theory”, so you talking about “Standard Model” is premature.

Correct. I should have precized "one of the hypothesis" but it seems that the Theia impact model is the preferred one for the time.

At this stage, I am neutral about the Earth-Theia collision: I have neither accepted, nor rejected it, because we need more evidence and data that will verify or debunk this model.

Well, as said above in #59 the very Standard Model model of forming planets really debunks this "Earth-Theia collision and a later accretion via gravity" should have formed a Moon with it´s own independent separate rotation - but it hasn´t as this is locked to the Earth. A clear indication of a direct birth from the Earth IMO.

Could the Earth capture the moon in its oribit?
Again, probably...probably not...we don’t know.

To me this isn´t very likely. An independent planet/Moon would most likely have its own rotation and orbital motion. Besides this, the Moon is slowly mowing away from the Earth whereas a capture still would pull the Moon towards the Earth. (I know of the "frame dragging", theory but I don´t believe in this)

This thread is nothing more than another anti-science propaganda and rantings by someone who don’t understand the concept of verifiable evidence.

Yes, it very much seems like that.

 

[dad]

I told you that in reply #59 and you have to read the standard model explanation vs my explanation in order to understand this.

You cited imaginary accretion long ago in imaginary times and places. Grasping at imaginary straws to try and explain the solar system in a godless way. Religion.

And if you ignore the scientific explanations you´ll end up in pure beliefs.

Making stuff up has zero to do with science and calling it science is false.

"Formed" or "created" is in principle the same too me.

Adam was formed by God, created by God. The world was created also and the moon. Nothing to do with made up scenarios that have no connection to fact or reality.

 

[Native]

gnostic said: ↑
The very fact, that man and woman required copulation before conception, pregnancy and birth to occur, and have been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, is indication that natural reproduction are the sources for all newborn babies.

Agreed in this and this even is explained in the Creation Story.

Adam and Eve were not babies. And your false dates are less than worthless.

The First Human Ancestors is a global telling in ancient Myths and Religions and it is not specifially connected to Adam and Eve. A story which is directly connected to the creation/formation of the ancient known part of the Universe, the Milky Way:.

It is BOTH a telling of the two cosmic genders, qualities and principles which participates in the creation/formation AND a mytho-cosmological symbolism of the Milky Way contours on the southern and northern hemisphere as illustrated here: - Forfather Gods. Adam and Eve

In this way the telling of the "First Ancestors" is really a story of the origin of the humans as also described here with Adam - Adam - Wikipedia . and Eve here - Eve - Wikipedia

If taking this global telling of "the first ancestors" literally, there is nothing left but pure dogmas and blind beliefs as such an interpretation disconnect the entire plot from all its logical informations of the creation itself.

 

[Native]

You cited imaginary accretion long ago in imaginary times and places. Grasping at imaginary straws to try and explain the solar system in a godless way. Religion.

And NOT grasping a cosmological imagery according to science is just blind beliefs.

Making stuff up has zero to do with science and calling it science is false.

How would you know at all as you categorically refuse to study science?

Adam was formed by God, created by God. The world was created also and the moon. Nothing to do with made up scenarios that have no connection to fact or reality.

And there you wrote it yourself: You are not able to connect the reality to your religious disconnected dogmas - or vise versa.

Well, thanks for nothing anyway

 

[gnostic]

Adam and Eve were not babies. And your false dates are less than worthless.

That's my points, there are no real life examples, today, where people come into existence as full grown adults - without infancy, without childhood, without adolescence.

You have no evidence that such creation/existence possible and probable, so Adam and Eve are purely mythological and fictional characters.

That's why Genesis is a bunch of myths.

Unless you can show that adult human who have no history of infancy and childhood, then all you have make-believe fable. Adam and Eve are that fable.

There are also no such thing as talking serpent and talking donkey, unless they are found in myths and fables.

The ancient Sumerian/Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Celtic, Chinese religions all have stories of talking animals, so the Bible and Qur'an (eg talking ants) also have fables of talking animals.


Don't worry about dates, dad.

Have you ever know anyone TODAY, being transformed into human from dust?

Have you ever know anyone being created (requiring no reproduction whatsoever), TODAY, as fully grown adult?​

If no, to both answers, then you have no evidence that such creation are possible.

Reproduction and childbirth are natural phenomena, dad, not supernatural; there are no magic involve in the processes. And even Jesus was in Mary's womb, later born, had childhood and puberty, before reaching adulthood.

Were you, yourself, dad, not form through natural reproduction? Were you not born through child birth?​

If you answer yes to both questions, then these are evidence that you weren't magically created, evidence you didn't skip being baby, toddler and teenager.

Have you really become so deluded that you cannot distinguish between reality and your make-believe fiction?

 

[ecco]

Once they admit not knowing what they are talking about, the wild conjectures lose significance.

Science once thought the orbits of the planets were circular. Then, with better equipment, they understood that the orbits were elliptical. OH NO! SCIENCE IS WRONG! JUST LOOK AT THE WILD CONJECTURE! That's the problem with science, it continues to advance. If it didn't you would be walking around today with a nosegay stuffed with poppies to ward off the virus instead of a mask. Oh, wait. I forgot, Trump followers don't wear masks. But you get the point.






Needing only one book that never changes is appealing to some. It sure beats having to constantly try to learn new things.

The only problem with that is that there are thousands of different ways of interpreting what the Bible says. Some believe Genesis is allegory. Some believe Genesis is factual truth and days are 24 hours long. Some believe Genesis is factual truth and days can be millions of years. Some believe a form of people lived before Adam and Eve. Others believe they were the first.

What good is an unchanging book if people cannot agree on what anything really means?




ecco previously...Does the article say that there was no collision? No.

It says the evidence seems to point against the theory basically.

No. It does not. I understand that you have a very deeply ingrained bias against science. Your posts make that clear.

But if you say you have read the entire article and still come to the conclusion that: "the evidence seems to point against the theory basically", then it is clear that you also have a reading comprehension problem. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you can point to the specific sentence or paragraph that leads you to conclude: "the evidence seems to point against the theory basically".

It speaks to me as being yet another confirmation that science doesn't really know what it is talking about on origin issues.

It isn't about science "speaking". It is about your inability to look at science rationally. It is your "hearing" that is the problem.

Whether that is the result of years of intense childhood religious indoctrination only you can say.

 

[Native]

. . . so Adam and Eve are purely mythological and fictional characters.

In this case you´re almost as astray as "dad" is in his dogmatic issues. Yes, Adam and Eve are fictional as "human beings" but they are real cosmological characters, i.e. as symbols for the creation as described in my #72 Today at 10:08 AM

Have you ever know anyone TODAY, being transformed into human from dust?

Not to defend "dad" but if you knew the creation stories "from the button", you´ll know that the terms mud and soil is mentioned as the first firm matter in the creation. Even you and me is partly made of dust.

 

[dad]

The First Human Ancestors is a global telling in ancient Myths and Religions and it is not specifially connected to Adam and Eve.

Who cares about myths of unbelievers?

A story which is directly connected to the creation/formation of the ancient known part of the Universe, the Milky Way:.

Again who cares what unbelieving idol worshippers and child sacrificers of old thought of the stars?
Not me.

I am not going to call Jesus and the apostles liars, as you know they spoke of the first man and woman and creation.

 

[dad]

That's my points, there are no real life examples, today, where people come into existence as full grown adults - without infancy, without childhood, without adolescence.

Nor would we expect that God was a fool when He told them to be fruitful and multiply and set it up that way. Nothing to do with how He made the man and woman.

You have no evidence that such creation/existence possible and probable,

You have none that is isn't.

so Adam and Eve are purely mythological and fictional characters.

No they are people in a record, and who were confirmed real by Jesus.

There are also no such thing as talking serpent and talking donkey, unless they are found in myths and fables.

We cannot base all history and human and spiritual experiences on your few years of life, location, and personal biases.

The ancient Sumerian/Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Celtic, Chinese religions all have stories of talking animals, so the Bible and Qur'an (eg talking ants) also have fables of talking animals.

You do realize that Egypt and Greece and Sumer etc were all very shortly post flood and post tower of Babel? Why would people of that day not have stories passed down about the past also? You see they all spoke the same language mere decades before they grew into kingdoms. For example Egypt started about 60 years after the birth of Peleg, or about 54 years after the tower of Babel! Babylon was started only about seven years after the tower of Babel!!!

In the Days of Peleg

Have you ever know anyone TODAY, being transformed into human from dust?​

Explain in wgat wat people reproduced 6000 years after creation are supposed to be made this way? Foolishness.

Reproduction and childbirth are natural phenomena, dad, not supernatural; there are no magic involve in the processes. And even Jesus was in Mary's womb, later born, had childhood and puberty, before reaching adulthood.

God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, so it is natural. Natural does not mean random fluke and chaos and order from nothing.

 

[dad]

Science once thought the orbits of the planets were circular. Then, with better equipment, they understood that the orbits were elliptical. OH NO! SCIENCE IS WRONG! JUST LOOK AT THE WILD CONJECTURE! That's the problem with science, it continues to advance. If it didn't you would be walking around today with a nosegay stuffed with poppies to ward off the virus instead of a mask. Oh, wait. I forgot, Trump followers don't wear masks. But you get the point.

Science is capable of some things here in the fishbowl. It is not capable of dealing with things out of this time and place that relate to origins.

Needing only one book that never changes is appealing to some. It sure beats having to constantly try to learn new things.

The Guy who wrote the book knows it all.

The only problem with that is that there are thousands of different ways of interpreting what the Bible says.

Not on the important things.

Some believe Genesis is allegory.

In other words they do not believe the bible and picked a weak and foolish position somehow, instead.

Some believe Genesis is factual truth and days are 24 hours long.

They must have actually read and believed what it says.

Some believe Genesis is factual truth and days can be millions of years.

They can't defend their position.

Some believe a form of people lived before Adam and Eve

. In their dreams.

Others believe they were the first.

The bible states this unequivocally.

What good is an unchanging book if people cannot agree on what anything really means?

What delusions or fables people chose RATHER than the book has nothing to do with the book.

ecco previously...Does the article say that there was no collision? No.

Once it makes it clear they do not know who cares what they imagine?

It isn't about science "speaking". It is about your inability to look at science rationally. It is your "hearing" that is the problem.

You can find denying creation and attributing the moon to some imaginary planet that collided with earth then vanished with not trace 'rational' if you like. The reality is that is it a story with no real basis, and apparently at odds with what would be expected if such a fantasy did happen!

 

[ecco]

What delusions or fables people chose RATHER than the book has nothing to do with the book.

Choosing science over the imaginings of people who lived 2000-3000 years ago has a lot to do with The Book.

The stories in The Book are so silly that even a ten-year-old could see they were nothing more than tall tales for ignorant people. I know. I was that ten year old who laughed at tall tales about giraffes and lions riding in an ark. I laughed at the tall tale of an angry man in the sky drowning most of his creation. Many years later, I still laugh at the stories and laugh at the people who believe such silliness.