How Was "The Moon" Created ?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-6-2005 @ 01:51 AM by Nygdan
Originally posted by expert999
I just said that there is enough to cover the whole earth. that is if you level out all the land.

Well, duh. But that's not really saying anything is it?


the continents are still connected, just the low places are filled with water.

No, the continents are not connected underwater.

ok you dont know where the moon came from.
you do not know how old it is.

either the moon was created or it came to be by some other way of evolving or forming.

I don't understand this. You said that you had been studying these things for many years. You should know what the standard theories are and you should be explaining why they are wrong.

The moon came from the earth. A large impactor hit the earth, and this volatilized both bodies. Part of this molten slag was thrown into space, alot of it returned to earth, and some of it stayed in space, forming the moon. The best evidence for this, besides the computer simulations that demonstrate that the phyics make sense and are reasonable, is that the material of which the moon is made up of is extremely similar to the stuff that the crust and mantle of the earth are made up of.

The formation of the moon has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the change of biological species thru time. "Cosmic' evolution is the changing of the universe and 'stellar evolution' is the series of stages thru which a star goes. The three things are completely different. Stellar evolution, for example, is a 'controlled' process in which the star burns out and changes during its lifetime in generally predicable ways. Organic evolution is completely inpredictable and is dependant upon the conditions of existence that the species finds itself subjected to. Inorganic evolution, like stellar, cosmic, or even lunar, 'evolution', has nothing to do with biological, darwinina, organic evolution. Any process by which any thing changes, can be called 'evolution', its simply a vulgarization of a latin term meaning, roughly, 'unravelling'. So we can talk about the 'evolution' of the moon, we can look at the evidence and come up with an hypothesis about how it got here, and we can be completely wrong, and it doesn't affect biological evolution at all, becuase its unrelated.


reply posted on 26-6-2005 @ 09:10 AM by expert999
ok, an evolutionist as smarter than me.

he knows all about the law of conservation of angualy momentum.
im sure he could explain to you why the planets in our own solar system are spinning opposite directing, and how some of the moons on some planets have opposite orbits.

im sure that he could explain why everything isnt distributed evenly throughout space.

becuase if the big bang were true, all the matter in the universe would have been in one area. that would make a frictionless environment

im sure that he could tell you why the sun is shrinking and at the rate it is shrinking, it would have been so big that its equator would have been touching the earth 200 million years ago.

im sure that he could tell you that the moon controls the tides and that the moon is moving away, but if it is moving away, that means it used to be closer. and if it was too close, the tides would cause water to cover the earth twice a day.

if the earth is billions of years old. it shoudl have stopped spinning already. and the moon should be long gone. so should the sun.

charles lile and charles darwin didnt know what they were talking about, lile was a lawyer, and darwin only had a degree in theology. and has been rumored to repenting on his death bed for God to save him, wonder why....

evolution is dumb and is not even a good theory.

this universe was created, life is too complex for it to have happened by chance, I think the chance of life evolving from non-living material was like 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

yeah thats a big number.
it doesnt happen, and if it did, that means that life should be found on other planets. but we havent found that yet either. becuase it doesnt exist. and if it did. I wonder if they have a bible.


reply posted on 27-6-2005 @ 02:35 AM by Simon666
Originally posted by expert999
he knows all about the law of conservation of angualy momentum.
im sure he could explain to you why the planets in our own solar system are spinning opposite directing, and how some of the moons on some planets have opposite orbits. im sure that he could explain why everything isnt distributed evenly throughout space.

Wrong. All planets rotate in the same direction as the sun and retrograde moons were captured and not formed along with the planets they are orbiting, indeed because of the law of conservation of angular momentum.


Originally posted by expert999
im sure that he could tell you why the sun is shrinking and at the rate it is shrinking, it would have been so big that its equator would have been touching the earth 200 million years ago.

The sun is losing mass, but it is not remotely near "1% per year" as you originally claimed - this absolutely ridiculous claim would make the sun pretty small in 100 years - and hence would never be as big as you claim it was 200 million years ago.


Originally posted by expert999
im sure that he could tell you that the moon controls the tides and that the moon is moving away, but if it is moving away, that means it used to be closer. and if it was too close, the tides would cause water to cover the earth twice a day. if the earth is billions of years old. it shoudl have stopped spinning already. and the moon should be long gone. so should the sun.

The moon IS moving away, but incredibly slow at 4 cm per year. And the formation of the moon was a cataclysmic event and the tides would indeed have been a lot larger than today - however nowhere near enough to cover all of the earth - but so would also the tidal friction which would have increased the distance between earth and moon a lot faster than the 4 cm per year it is today. That the earth should have stopped spinning and the moon long gone if they were billions of years old is also a bogus claim not supported by any calculations of any decent scientist. It is not even possible for the moon to go by itself.


Originally posted by expert999
charles lile and charles darwin didnt know what they were talking about, lile was a lawyer, and darwin only had a degree in theology. and has been rumored to repenting on his death bed for God to save him, wonder why....

Darwin repenting on his deathbed is a creationist myth.


Originally posted by expert999
this universe was created, life is too complex for it to have happened by chance, I think the chance of life evolving from non-living material was like 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

yeah thats a big number.
it doesnt happen, and if it did, that means that life should be found on other planets. but we havent found that yet either. becuase it doesnt exist. and if it did. I wonder if they have a bible.

That is merely your opinion, not fact.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Newfound "super-Earth"
  Posted 11 days ago with 56 member flags
Enceladus Backlit by Saturn
  Posted 5 days ago with 50 member flags
Toronto teens send Lego man into space: video
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
  Posted 3 days ago with 26 member flags
Amazing new photo of Earth. The Blue Marble 2012
  Posted 15 days ago with 22 member flags
Stunning close view of Mercury
  Posted 3 days ago with 20 member flags
NASA Probe Captures 1st Video of Moon\'s Far Side
  Posted 12 days ago with 19 member flags