How Was "The Moon" Created ?

Dear god, can you get any of your facts straight?

ok read this about charles darwin.
www.thedarwinpapers.com...

His wife has nothing to do with that story. That page is pretty darned meaningless and simply repeats the lie and says 'it might be true'.

A woman named Elizabeth Reid Hope claimed to have visited darwin on his death bed and heard him say these things (its got nothing to do with his wife), without any substantiation and with his family completely denying that he said anything like it and denying that she had ever been there. This is covered here, amoung other places.

Furthermore, dawin fully recognized that his theory did not claim that there was no god, and if anything went from being a regular christian to something of an agnostic, not an atheist, so he has nothing to repent for in the first place.

The only people that should be reprenting, probably, are the ones who keep spreading these ludicrous rumours.

Is the creationist position so weak and insubstantial, that it requires darwin to have recanted his entire theory, in order for creationists to defeat it? Apparently so.

well darwins theory and evolution go hand in hand.

and he said that all organisms are somehow related. is that true according to scientific proof?

Originally posted by expert999
well darwins theory and evolution go hand in hand.

Take a guess as to why.

and he said that all organisms are somehow related. is that true according to scientific proof?

Yes.


edit to add:
If you want to discuss this particular aspect, please check in the Origins and Creationism Forum for similar topics, and if it hasn't been addressed, feel free to start a new thread. If it has, feel free to reply and partipate in an ongoing discussion. This thread has gotten a little off track, lets try to stick to the formation of the moon, which, again, we know fairly well was formed from earthy material. The big question is perhaps how, and the impactor hypothesis seems to be the best answer.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Nygdan]

and what proof is there? that we are related...

I thnk that first of all that plants cell structure are a little different than ours.

Originally posted by expert999
I thnk that first of all that plants cell structure are a little different than ours.

And exactly how would that exclude ANY relationship?

Originally posted by expert999
I thnk that first of all that plants cell structure are a little different than ours.

You know, its pretty obvious that you are bringing up things that you think somehow refute evolution, and then when someone addresses these fallicious concerns, you simply ignore it and bring something else up, all the while going completely off topic.


If you (or anyone else) want to discuss darwinism, go to the Origins forum.

how knows anything about the inverse square law?

that would explain what would happen is the moon was too close to the earth

Originally posted by expert999
"With no atmosphere and a rarely disturbed surface, a fine layer of dust accumulates. If the layer were deep, this would show an old moon and early formation, but since the layer is slight, this proves a recent creation."

Funny to think anyone could look at the moon and think of it as a "rarely disturbed surface"... LOL Have you looked at the moon?

The moon is a CONSTANTLY disturbed surface. Futhermore, it is scientific FACT that the moon has no warm core and no geologic activity. If you insist it's so, you're fooling yourself.

Well there is the idea that maybe the moon came from somewhere else and got snagged in our orbit like pluto is thought to be.

I'm going with the theory that the moon formed in the planetary nebula around the Earth at the time. The planetary nebula is a cloud of material that remained in orbit during/after the Earth's formation. This material began to clump together over a period of millions of years. This eventually got larger and larger and formed a shpere under it's own gravity.

This may also account for why the moon is "light" for it's size. This is becuase the less dense material remained in orbit during the formation of the Earth.

GoldEagle

honestly, i would have to say, from what i think, the moon was part of the earth at one time, and was blown off by an asteroid. then over time is was shaped to be what it is today my meteors and what not.... but thats just my little theory...

Originally posted by expert999
it is obvious that the moon was created along the with the universe and all that is in the universe is younger than 10,000 years old. . one of the moons of jupiter has a hot core and volcanoes and hasnt cooled down yet.

[Thud of forehead hitting desk] Nopenopenope NOPE! Please look this matter up, you're just making yourself look ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is very old, very worn and very eroded in parts. If the universe is 10,000 years old then how could the light from the farest stars - which are millions of light-years away - have got here? Light has a set speed. The best way toi refute the very tall tale that the universe is 10,000 years old is to go outside on a clear night and look straight up at the stars.
As for the moons of Jupiter, I presume that you are making a strained reference to Io. Io is the nearest of the great moons of Jupiter to the planet. It has another one, Europa, further out. Europa and Jupiter are both larger and as a result Io is getting massaged gravitationally, keeping the core hot and making its volcanoes spew molten sulphur. Not the same as failing to cool down!

why does it matter ?

will knowing why change your paycheck or mine ?

I guess this is a valid question , but I'd rather know about the bases on the dark side







I suppose neither of us is gonna get the answer we want...

I support the collision theory. My thinking is a young earth was hit by a large ice comet. This would help explain the amount of water on our world. It could also explain life here, organisims within the ice, plenty of static given off as ice meets red hot rock, the spark of life so to speak.

FATMAN

Well i haven't followed this particularily because i have just joined but, how could we test the splash method when most of the crust then is now liquid mantle? most of the current soil and rock is more recent than... well however long ago it supposedly happened. its just decayed plants animals and other living beings and the rock is from plate tectonics and volcanoes more recent than 3 billion years. i don't sound proffesional because im only 14 and doing a project about the moon and its phases. and since we havent tested the moons core we couldnt tell whether it was the splash method or not.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Raven_on_a_pedestal]

i think im going to start a thread on how the earth is going to be destroyed in 5 billion yeras...

Here is a pretty interesting article about the moon.

Artificial moon theory

It always kinda stuck with me, what if the moon is hollow, it is much older than most things in our solar system, I believe the moon is even older than the sun.

I probbaly should read this article again...

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Here is a pretty interesting article about the moon.

Artificial moon theory

It always kinda stuck with me, what if the moon is hollow, it is much older than most things in our solar system, I believe the moon is even older than the sun.

I probbaly should read this article again...

Umm... they tested the moon rocks that the Apollo crews brought back with them - guess what, they dated them to the same age as the Earth - about 4.5bn years old. If the moon is older than the sun then how did it get where it did?