It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the Moon Just Get Here?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

That's a popular theory now. Why wouldn't the geological signature be identical?
Contamination by the mass that crashed into us???

There is still the theory that they formed individually from the nebula that formed the solar system.
edit on 8142016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The moon is spiraling away from the Earth at an average rate of 1.5 in per year. It turns out some smart dudes with math skills can calculate the rate the moon travels away from earth and reverse the process. In reverse the earth and moon become one, geological studies and lunar samples show stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.




posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: charlyv

That's a popular theory now. Why wouldn't the geological signature be identical?
Contamination by the mass that crashed into us???

There is still the theory that they formed individually from the nebula that formed the solar system.


The distribution of materials are controlled by density and gravity.
There are sophisticated models that simulate it fairly well.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

As an afterthought,

Another theory suggests that something got very close to the Earth, but did not impact it. The Earth's response was to send up a plume from the core, through the mantle and crust. Thus the Moon emerged from it, Earth stuff, but mixed like a dollop from an over-sized pancake.

It is still possible that something impacted Earth, but like you said, it would have been something consolidated from the nebulae near Earth, and thus composed of similar ingredients. I hope science can figure it out, as both theories do have merit. In either scenario, the Earth, as it was originally constructed, changed significantly.
edit on 14-8-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

In all honesty .... NO. We've dated rocks from the moon to around the same age as the earth.

Gravitationaly we'd not have creatures adapted to tidal pools with out the moon (ie no ties).

Lastly IF it were a new thing in our skies, we'd be feeling the effect, even now 1000s of years later.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
Its not easy to prove a global flood that occurred long ago either way. I find it interesting that people don't believe it happened. Scholars aren't sure if the biblical flood was larger or smaller than these modern day disasters. For now its still just a personal belief. Whats your opinion on the moon?


A global flood would leave noticeable geological evidence linked to the same time period everywhere on earth. This is the opposite of what evidence shows. When the last glacial period ended it caused flooding all over the planet,but they were isolated individual floods, not the entire earth at once.



You DO make a good point BUT that is all down to interpretation of the available data and that once again is down to the bias and belief of the interpreter.

NOW I do know that some of these site's will cause a psychological allergic reaction but give them a chance there are many creationists whom have the same level of IQ and the same credential's as the more establishment accepted scientists of the anti religious movement.
www.icr.org...
answersingenesis.org...
Of course this is less plausible if you accept the standard dating criteria but remember there is also a perception filter at play and out of range date tend's to be ignored or regarded as erroneous, also some thing's such as artifact's in coal report's of which can be dated right back as long as human's have burned it.
www.icr.org...

OF course there are less viable claim's and artifact's of dubious dating such as the Coso Geode which turned out to be most likely a champion spark plug from the very early 1900's with baked on clay deposit's formed by the natural desert heat were it had been discarded into a dry stream bed and presumably later washed over by mud and debris during a flash flood.
But that does not and can not discredit the entire field of artifacts which simply do not fit the accepted paradigm.
6000years.org...
Sadly of course most artifact's have been lost, in part because of a pre-existing bias on the part of the scientific community at large AGAINST them and there wish for them to simply go away or ignore them outright claiming they are fraudulent or fakery's.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
You DO make a good point BUT that is all down to interpretation of the available data and that once again is down to the bias and belief of the interpreter.


Geological evidence is not up for interpretation. Creationists often say this to try and force their belief system into the science and think it's rational, but a global flood would leave obvious evidence and there is no denying this. The sites you referenced lie and claim that they would expect a global flood to create the fossil layers, which of course makes zero sense, since the geological column is in perfect order from old to new, and the dating verifies it. You have to be a sucker to believe that flood was so devastating and killed most life on earth, yet somehow managed to put the organisms in perfect order everywhere on earth. If that were the case, the organisms would be all scrambled up, there would be no geological order and the dating would drastically vary.


NOW I do know that some of these site's will cause a psychological allergic reaction but give them a chance there are many creationists whom have the same level of IQ and the same credential's as the more establishment accepted scientists of the anti religious movement.

It's not about level of IQ, it's about intentionally spreading lies and half truths to present a faith based belief system as fact. No I will not give ICR or AIG a chance, they are not credible and have already been proven to make fraudulent and demonstratively false claims time and time again. Their argument about a flood geology is ridiculous. I've read their arguments hundreds of times, they do not make a valid case and rely on people not understanding science to push their agenda. It is disinfo at it's finest.

ncse.com...

debunkingcreationism.blogspot.com...

www.talkorigins.org...


Of course this is less plausible if you accept the standard dating criteria but remember there is also a perception filter at play and out of range date tend's to be ignored or regarded as erroneous, also some thing's such as artifact's in coal report's of which can be dated right back as long as human's have burned it.


Sure, anything is plausible when you blindly deny the science behind it. Sorry, not buying ICR's claims on this one.


Sadly of course most artifact's have been lost, in part because of a pre-existing bias on the part of the scientific community at large AGAINST them and there wish for them to simply go away or ignore them outright claiming they are fraudulent or fakery's.


BS. Show me a single scientific research paper that confirms the artifacts and evidence and the dating methods used. Surely somebody has done real research on it beyond ICR's unverifiable claims?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   


Apollo 13 was headed homeward. Moments later the 15-ton spent third stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle crashed into the Moon, as planned. It occurred at 8:09 p.m. EST, April 14. The S-IVB struck the Moon with a force equivalent to 11 1/2 tons of TNT. It hit 85 miles west northwest of the site where the Apollo 12 astronauts had set up their seismometer. Scientists on Earth said, "the Moon rang like a bell."





Back in November 1969, the Apollo 12 astronauts had sent their Lunar Module crash- ing into the Moon following their return to the command craft after the lunar landing mission. That Lunar Module struck with a force of one ton of TNT. The shock waves built up to a peak in eight minutes and con- tinued for nearly an hour.


Houston, we've got a problem

Is the Moon Hollow?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I'm more inclined to believe that the Earth simply "caught" the moon.

If it had been the result of a collision I think we would have seen more evidence of this in the form of debris also orbiting the Earth. (Think rings)

Most planets have moons similar to ours.

I think in the early days of the formation of the planets, the larger bodies were caught in the Sun's gravity and all the smaller ones that formed eventually got caught in various planets gravity.

Had the moon formed from the same material as the Earth it would account for similarities, and had it formed near enough to the Earth on a similar trajectory around the Sun, it would probably have been travelling slow enough for the Earth to capture it.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
The ancient flood in China was not global it was in China!

There have been many flood myths and given that floods occur from time to time is it any wonder these stories exist worldwide. How do we know that every flood myth refers to a flood at the same time as opposed to multiple events over a couple of thousand years?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
when I was a kid we did not have a moon!

seriously!
I remember stories from some ware?
that the moon was Not around eath.
this from the humans(?) that live thier!

and the moon arrived? (they do say its holow)
dont know how much damage it did.
the grate flood maybe?

some say the moon hit earth.
maybe that killed the dinosaurs.
but it sounds to me like some bodie/thing past stories down.
! & !



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sorry barc's you will forgive me if I just choked on my meal while reading your opening section, I choked because I laughed at the obvious lack of scientific approach in that statement about geological evidence not being open to interpretation.

Hang on a moment and re-read it yourself, you know better all evidence it open to interpretation and most geological evidence is based on comparison BUT there is very real practical science in geology unlike some anthropology and even some paleontology, geology is good because it is a practical tool for finding resources such as ore deposit's, oil, coal, natural gas and even artesien water supply's (large underground aquifers or water trapped in rock strata that can be used for irrigation of parched environment's or to provide drinking water etc.

It is also useful for architects especially when building large structure as a geological ground survey is often required and they are often built down to the bedrock for stability reason's (they did not have geological survey's when the tower of Piza was built?.

So the science is very much not in debate but the methodology of dating often used in relation to it is another matter entirely, how for example can you prove emphatically that the rock strata on one continent is the same date as a SIMILAR rock stratification on another continent bearing in mind that even with continental drift regional climate fluctuations existed when the strata were lain down and so similarity in strate can be therefore misconstrued as evidence of the same date.

So the DATA is VERY MUCH open to debate and very much open to interpretation as YOU WELL KNOW.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
I'm more inclined to believe that the Earth simply "caught" the moon.

If it had been the result of a collision I think we would have seen more evidence of this in the form of debris also orbiting the Earth. (Think rings)


It's already been demonstrated that the moon is too big to have been caught by the earth, plus it doesn't make sense because the moon has the same composition as earth. The collision took place something like 4.3 billion years ago, plenty of time for the dust to have gravitated to the moon or earth.


Most planets have moons similar to ours.


Most planets actually have moons much smaller than ours in comparison to the size of the planet. The moon is near 1/4 the mass of earth, which is too big to be captured by gravity.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Sorry barc's you will forgive me if I just choked on my meal while reading your opening section, I choked because I laughed at the obvious lack of scientific approach in that statement about geological evidence not being open to interpretation.

Hang on a moment and re-read it yourself, you know better all evidence it open to interpretation and most geological evidence is based on comparison BUT there is very real practical science in geology unlike some anthropology and even some paleontology, geology is good because it is a practical tool for finding resources such as ore deposit's, oil, coal, natural gas and even artesien water supply's (large underground aquifers or water trapped in rock strata that can be used for irrigation of parched environment's or to provide drinking water etc.


You choked because of the lack of scientific approach, yet you cited ICR and AIG as valid scientific sources? Pardon me while I puke.

When one type of dating is confirmed by several others and offers a consistent reliable result virtually every time, it's pretty safe to say that it works. If you think there is a problem with the current science behind radiometric dating, then you must show the evidence or explain why it is wrong, instead of just denying it. The science has already been done, I don't need to go into a lab and verify it myself because hundreds if not thousands of others have. This is why peer review exists. These experiments are open to the public and anybody with the means and knowhow can duplicate them to check for themselves. Again, there is no interpretation involved at this stage of the game. The work has been done, and thus far no out of place fossils have been found (that aren't hoaxes or haven't been open to public study). If you have proof of any of this based on science I'd love to see it.


It is also useful for architects especially when building large structure as a geological ground survey is often required and they are often built down to the bedrock for stability reason's (they did not have geological survey's when the tower of Piza was built?.


What does this have to do with flood geology?


how for example can you prove emphatically that the rock strata on one continent is the same date as a SIMILAR rock stratification on another continent


By dating the rocks in question based on the radioactive isotope decay.


So the DATA is VERY MUCH open to debate and very much open to interpretation as YOU WELL KNOW.


Except that it's really not, but I'm looking forward to hearing your evidence that isn't just a creationist propaganda site. I mean, what were you honestly expecting to read on that site? If you are suggesting that out of place fossils or artifacts have been found, I'd like to see the research that was done.
edit on 8 15 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

If the moon formed from material in the same region as the Earth, then surely that would explain composition?

If they were both on the same path around the sun very close to each other, the moon slightly further out and traveling only very slightly faster, then why would the Earths gravity not capture it?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Barcs

If the moon formed from material in the same region as the Earth, then surely that would explain composition?

If they were both on the same path around the sun very close to each other, the moon slightly further out and traveling only very slightly faster, then why would the Earths gravity not capture it?


The problem is that the object is too big to be captured. Plus they can analyze the moon rocks and compared them to earth rocks. There was definitely a massive collision at one point. Earth actually consists of 2 planets combining into one after a collision that shattered them. This also formed the moon. It's really the only way to explain the tidal locking and the fact that the moon is regressing out of its orbit a few inches each year. How would the earth have enough gravitational pull to capture the moon when it has been observed that the moon is getting further from the earth each year? Sure there could be other possibilities but I'm pretty sure they have conclusively ditched the capture hypothesis.
edit on 8 15 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Sorry barc's you will forgive me if I just choked on my meal while reading your opening section, I choked because I laughed at the obvious lack of scientific approach in that statement about geological evidence not being open to interpretation.

Hang on a moment and re-read it yourself, you know better all evidence it open to interpretation and most geological evidence is based on comparison BUT there is very real practical science in geology unlike some anthropology and even some paleontology, geology is good because it is a practical tool for finding resources such as ore deposit's, oil, coal, natural gas and even artesien water supply's (large underground aquifers or water trapped in rock strata that can be used for irrigation of parched environment's or to provide drinking water etc.


You choked because of the lack of scientific approach, yet you cited ICR and AIG as valid scientific sources? Pardon me while I puke.

When one type of dating is confirmed by several others and offers a consistent reliable result virtually every time, it's pretty safe to say that it works. If you think there is a problem with the current science behind radiometric dating, then you must show the evidence or explain why it is wrong, instead of just denying it. The science has already been done, I don't need to go into a lab and verify it myself because hundreds if not thousands of others have. This is why peer review exists. These experiments are open to the public and anybody with the means and knowhow can duplicate them to check for themselves. Again, there is no interpretation involved at this stage of the game. The work has been done, and thus far no out of place fossils have been found (that aren't hoaxes or haven't been open to public study). If you have proof of any of this based on science I'd love to see it.


It is also useful for architects especially when building large structure as a geological ground survey is often required and they are often built down to the bedrock for stability reason's (they did not have geological survey's when the tower of Piza was built?.


What does this have to do with flood geology?


how for example can you prove emphatically that the rock strata on one continent is the same date as a SIMILAR rock stratification on another continent


By dating the rocks in question based on the radioactive isotope decay.


So the DATA is VERY MUCH open to debate and very much open to interpretation as YOU WELL KNOW.


Except that it's really not, but I'm looking forward to hearing your evidence that isn't just a creationist propaganda site. I mean, what were you honestly expecting to read on that site? If you are suggesting that out of place fossils or artifacts have been found, I'd like to see the research that was done.


Sorry Barc's but you really are full of it, your point is totally invalid and you know that well enough but there is no point entering a never ending debate with you as you will simply go on and then I will go on like some vintage ariston advert from the TV while the thread is totally ignored, you take on peer review which is fine but not infallable and how many time's has peer review been proven wrong in the past.
My argument upon the layering and depositing of strata and stata comparison from disparate site's remain's and IS valid, most dating using Geological methodology is not intended to be Precise anyway as that is simply not possible to achieve but to a geologist that is not that important since they only need a range date and it is when there range dating is used by other sciences to indicate a more precise period that the more serious complication's arise as you SHOULD already well know given your hubris.

Seriously Barc you have nothing to argue and my point is Valid, is your's? or is it based on Peer Review.
There are two type's of scientist as you know (broadly there are probably millions of types - as many as there are individual scientists - but for argument sake, there are those that arrive at independent conclusion's and often rock the established (Peer Review) principles and even sometime's demolish them entirely after some initial resistance in the community and then there are those Lazy scientist's whom base everything on peer review and like to play it safe, the establishment boy's of the science world whom make up the vast army of drone's that do what they are paid for and little else.
edit on 15-8-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767


My argument upon the layering and depositing of strata and stata comparison from disparate site's remain's and IS valid, most dating using Geological methodology is not intended to be Precise anyway as that is simply not possible to achieve but to a geologist that is not that important since they only need a range date and it is when there range dating is used by other sciences to indicate a more precise period that the more serious complication's arise as you SHOULD already well know given your hubris.


The error margin for most dating methods is between 2-5% and it is accounted for in calculations. I never claimed that you could find an exact date from radiometric dating, or that any aspect of science is infallible. It's just that things that have evidence to backed them are more likely than things that don't. The dating gives a valid range of dates, with a low error margin. If scientists say that an organism lived between 20 and 21 million years ago, it's because that is the date range determined based on the error margin.

If you have something to provide that conflicts with this or my points above, I'd love to see it. You can't just keep repeating that my argument is invalid and I am wrong without providing any evidence or reason, and your spiel about the 2 types of scientists is a red herring and isn't based on anything more than conjecture. Saying that I'm "full of it" and offering no explanation why is ridiculous and lazy. Sorry, I don't base my conclusions on hubris, I base it on science. If you think it is invalid, please prove it instead of just denying it.

My argument in the beginning was that there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. It stands until evidence of said flood can be provided. I referenced the fossil layers because the website you sourced has made the argument that a worldwide flood is somehow responsible for perfectly organizing the fossil layers in the same order all across the globe, which doesn't make any logical sense. If you have a counter point to anything I said, please be out with it.
edit on 8 16 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Archaeologists have found evidence of great floods all over the World.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: stelth2

Out of curiosity, did they occur at the same time?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join