Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists Clueless On The Moon


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 11 July 2010 - 04:17 PM

Five theories have been proposed by evolutionists for the formation of the Moon :rolleyes: :

The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.

The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.

The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.

The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.

The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

#2 Guest_cms13ca_*

Guest_cms13ca_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 July 2010 - 04:31 PM

Five theories have been proposed by evolutionists for the formation of the Moon :rolleyes: :

The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.

The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.

The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.

The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.

The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

View Post


The most popular scientific theory or hypothesis is the giant impact where an asteroid/meteor crashed into earth (long before life existed on the planet).

http://en.wikipedia..../Moon_Formation

I do not understand, Cass, why you think this deals with biological evolution?

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 July 2010 - 06:28 PM

Five theories have been proposed by evolutionists for the formation of the Moon :rolleyes: :

View Post


Can you show the evidence for each theory? Can you show which is the leading theory and why? Can you show which theories have been shown to be false by direct observation? Can you propose a better theory on how the Earth - Moon system formed?

#4 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 12:59 AM

So, because we don't yet know something that is a problem?

That's the time things get interesting.

This thread is just "scientist's don't know everything yet" which is hardly news.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 July 2010 - 01:13 AM

So, because we don't yet know something that is a problem?

That's the time things get interesting.

This thread is just "scientist's don't know everything yet" which is hardly news.

View Post


No Phil, science knows most things that are knowable. How those scientist's fantasies can be plausible remains unknown.

#6 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 02:33 AM

No Phil, science knows most things that are knowable. How those scientist's fantasies can be plausible remains unknown.


To say that they are fantasies is insulting to those scientists that produce these hypotheses.

This has been asked:

Can you show the evidence for each theory? Can you show which is the leading theory and why? Can you show which theories have been shown to be false by direct observation? Can you propose a better theory on how the Earth - Moon system formed?


Until you can answer these questions you have no right to denigrate the work of these scientists in this way by claiming that they are fantasy.

#7 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 12 July 2010 - 03:02 AM

Five theories have been proposed by evolutionists for the formation of the Moon :rolleyes: :

View Post

Which of those five theories best explains how God created the moon? Or do you have another?

#8 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:00 AM

No Phil, science knows most things that are knowable.

View Post

If you lived in the year 1800 would you have made that statement?

#9 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:27 AM

Can you show the evidence for each theory?


There is none, because there is no observable evidence for them. This was the point, nothing an evolutionist believes is observable. Read the theories again:

The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.

The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.

The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.

The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.

The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

How can any of the above theories be observed?

P.S read my signiture.

#10 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:50 AM

Sorry but you misinderstand science. We don't have to directly observe something for it to be scientific. The effects of the theories have to be observeable.

Guess what, they are. So many creationists have this incorrect view of science. They think if we don't physically see something then its not scientific. That is actually a ridiculous statement.

Quarks have never been seen, and it is entirely possible tha they never will be but they are scientific.

Each of the theories above will produce particular signatures in the composition of the rocks / the nature of the orbits etc. To dismiss that evidence is a long way from science but it is what creationists think is correct.

#11 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:30 AM

Sorry but you misinderstand science.  We don't have to directly observe something for it to be scientific.  The effects of the theories have to be observeable.


Check a dictionary. :rolleyes:

Definition of science:

''The investigation of natural phenomena through observation.''

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005

''The systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation''

- Random House Dictionary, 2009.

Etymology Origin:

1300–50; ME << L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciēns), prp. of scīre to know (from observation)

Scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810
the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The fact is, evolution has not been observed so it is not scientific. This also applies to the age of the earth, you believe it is billions, how do you observe billions of years?

#12 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:12 AM

Yes, observation is used, but we haven't observed quarks, we observe the effects of quarks.

We often don't observe a murder or arson being committed but we observe the effects of these.

We can't observe evolution but we can observe the effects of evolution.

Why do you try and turn science into something that sounds childish:"if I didn't see it it couldn't have happened"?

#13 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:48 AM

Yes, observation is used, but we haven't observed quarks, we observe the effects of quarks.

We often don't observe a murder or arson being committed but we observe the effects of these.

We can't observe evolution but we can observe the effects of evolution.

Why do you try and turn science into something that sounds childish:"if I didn't see it it couldn't have happened"?

View Post


I thought you were a 'sceptic'? So you believe in things you can't see? How is that scepticism? You don't question anything (and go along with evolution which is not observable), believe in things you can't see etc how are you a sceptic?

#14 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:00 AM

I'm a sceptic because I follow the evidence. If there is no evidence, I don't accept something.

The evidence for quarks is there in the particular way protons react when bombarded. We can't see the quarks but the evidence shows that they are there.

The evidence for evolution shows that it has happened and that it is still occurring, but the evidence shows that it happens at geological speeds, so we are not llikely to see anything more than speciation in our lilfetimes.

There may be valid reasons to reject evolution but to dismiss it because we can't see it is, frankly, infantile.

#15 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 10:44 AM

I'm a sceptic because I follow the evidence.  If there is no evidence, I don't accept something.


I don't think you understand what true scepticism is. You appear to be following a modern trend of scepticism founded by atheists, instead i am refering to real scepticism, rooted from the ancient Greeks (i.e Pyrrhonian skepticism) and solipsism.

You are clearly not a sceptic in the traditional sense since you don't question everything. You don't question evolution for example, you believe anything at face value.

#16 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 10:54 AM

I don't think you understand what true scepticism is. You appear to be following a modern trend of scepticism founded by atheists, instead i am refering to real scepticism, rooted from the ancient Greeks (i.e Pyrrhonian skepticism) and solipsism.

You are clearly not a sceptic in the traditional sense since you don't question everything. You don't question evolution for example, you believe anything at face value.

View Post

You assume that PhilC doesn't question Evolution.
In this, you are quite likely wrong.

If you made the same assumption about me, you would certainly be wrong.

#17 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 10:57 AM

You assume that PhilC doesn't question Evolution.


Yea...because Phil (an atheist) really questions evolution with his comments:

''The evidence for evolution shows that it has happened and that it is still occurring''

:blink:

#18 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 11:02 AM

Yea...because Phil (an atheist) really questions evolution with his comments:

''The evidence for evolution shows that it has happened and that it is still occurring''

:blink:

View Post

And?

It is possible to ask a question and find the answer is "yes"

If you ask the question "does the evidence support evolution?" you are being skeptical. Finding that the answer is "yes" is just as possible as finding that the answer is "no"


Let's say someone came up to you and told you that one of the previous US presidents was a hollywood actor.
Skepticism would be checking whether this was true or not.
Just going "No, that's impossible." wouldn't be skepticism.

#19 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 July 2010 - 05:17 PM

Five theories have been proposed by evolutionists for the formation of the Moon :lol: :

View Post


Why would a god choose to create the moon?
I can think of a few reasons: Because it’s pretty to look at, because it provides some light after the sun goes down, because it creates the tides which are essential to some marine animals, ect.

But if that’s the case, then why does Mars have 2 moons? Or better yet, why does Jupiter have 63 moons?

I would be curious to know if you could even come up with one theory (let alone 5 different ones!) to explain the occurrence of moons in our solar system assuming that they were created by an intelligent designer.

#20 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 05:44 PM

Why would a god choose to create the moon?
I can think of a few reasons: Because it’s pretty to look at, because it provides some light after the sun goes down, because it creates the tides which are essential to some marine animals, ect.

But if that’s the case, then why does Mars have 2 moons? Or better yet, why does Jupiter have 63 moons?

I would be curious to know if you could even come up with one theory (let alone 5 different ones!) to explain the occurrence of moons in our solar system assuming that they were created by an intelligent designer.

View Post


Given the fact evolutionists don't even know how to define a planet, what they classify as 'moons' probably aren't.

Evolutionist astronomers named Pluto a planet 70 years too early and now it apparently isn't. :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5282440.stm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users