Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by centhwevir1979

Likewise, it could also be that mythical ball of cheese some folks used to suspect our Luna of being.

The Moon does have an inexplicably low density and tiny core, along with unusual dense masses called Mascons so it might as well be made of swiss cheese, as an explanatory hypothesis for lunar formation.

Hollow Moon: The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated,

"If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."

Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where there is "simply a cavity."

MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote,

"the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field... indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow."

In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

reply to post by NewAgeMan

The Hollow Moon theory is a hypothesis proposing that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space. No scientific evidence exists to support the idea. The concept is related to or derived from the better-known Hollow Earth theory, and was an infrequent but recurring plot device in pre-spaceflight science fiction.

Part of growing up is knowing the difference between fiction and nonfiction.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Based on what I wrote, my point is that the moon has an unusually low average mean density which could very well indicate areas inside the moon, aside from the mass concentrations or Mascons, that are either of super low density or even empty cavities, not unlike swiss cheese. I'm not saying that the entire moon is hollow, since I also pointed out that it has a core albeit a very small one.

Neither am I suggesting that the moon is some sort of "spacecraft" since it's comprised predominantly of earth mantle material and has been proven, by chemical analysis, to have formed at about the same distance from the sun as the earth.

I AM however, calling into question, based on info already presented and to follow, the traditional "Big Whack" or double-whack (with the early earth) by a Mars-sized (or larger) rogue planetoid, theory, which, based on the data, does not and cannot explain the geometrical nature and relationships of the earth-moon-sun system, unless one is prepared to invoke a strong anthropic principal styled coincidence theory that places the earth-moon-sun system at the very VERY farthest end of a probability curve that defies the wildest imagination.

Wow... I mean really... Wow.

NAM... you have stuck to your guns throughout this entire thread. In spite of being shown six ways from Sunday the many flaws in your entire argument. There is something to be said for your tenacity.

In spite of all of your argumentation's and defenses you have not provided a shred of scientifically verifiable evidence to support your "Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design".
After all, if it were honestly undeniable, everyone would have absolutely no other choice but to agree with you.

I state there is undeniable proof that water in it's liquid form is wet. I confidently state that gravity, electricity, air and time are respectively undeniable. I can further sate that the Earth, moon and sun are also undeniable. No one will disagree with any of these statements. Go ahead and ask why that is.
The answer is simple, all of my statements have scientifically verifiable proof or evidence that will substantiate them, making them universally accepted as undeniable facts.

Can any creationist anywhere provide any scientifically verifiable evidence that will substantiate any creator? The screamingly obvious answer is... No.... this is in spite of our current big three religions having at least, 1500 years to do so.

Originally posted by badsam


Can any creationist anywhere provide any scientifically verifiable evidence that will substantiate any creator? The screamingly obvious answer is... No.... this is in spite of our current big three religions having at least, 1500 years to do so.

Well, regardless of your world view- there was indeed a creator of some kind. In this sense creator does not necessarily have to mean a god. Sure, believe in the BBT or, Inflation Theory all you want. But something still had to create that.

Everything in this universe was created, and yet we have no clue what created the universe. We may have an idea or two about the mechanism, but not even close to understanding the creator of that mechanism.

You should check out this thread.. It's right on in its premise, at least in my opinion...

If there was undeniable proof of God that would effectively mean that we would all worhip him/it/they/etc.

There is no love if there is no free will to believe or not believe in his amazing moral code(read the words of Jesus and tell me that the world would be worse if everyone did what he said). God is love. True love defies naturalism.

We would all be bound by his words and we would basically be worship robots. This obviously isn't what God had in mind. The concept of good and evil is something nobody understands. We only know that it exists and that it is a destructive force.

Most people can understand why humans need a true moral code and not one that we make up on the fly. Without any true moral code I'm afraid this world would not be a very pleasant place. If love(God/Jesus) ran this earth things could be truly remarkable.

Imagine if all 7 billion of us were on the same page and all loved one another like we're supposed to.

I don't want to hear any BS about man made religion messing things up either, because we should all know by now that every single significant human institution is corrupt.

Even everybody's beloved science(self correcting blah blah) is filled with corruption. Just look at what "scientific studies" have allowed big pharma to get away with(half our population is on mind numbing drugs and we wonder why we're all so complacent). Look at the "scientific studies" regarding certain therapeutic plants....Look at the science behind fluoridating our water. It's easy to brainwash people with science. We get a lot of neat things from it, but it's also a tool used by those in power....

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by badsam


Can any creationist anywhere provide any scientifically verifiable evidence that will substantiate any creator? The screamingly obvious answer is... No.... this is in spite of our current big three religions having at least, 1500 years to do so.

Well, regardless of your world view- there was indeed a creator of some kind. In this sense creator does not necessarily have to mean a god. Sure, believe in the BBT or, Inflation Theory all you want. But something still had to create that.

Everything in this universe was created, and yet we have no clue what created the universe. We may have an idea or two about the mechanism, but not even close to understanding the creator of that mechanism.

You should check out this thread.. It's right on in its premise, at least in my opinion...

Interesting way to spin what I said... I expected this... anyway... you know damn well that the creationists I speak of are those people that believe some supernatural sky dude of one sort or another created everything.
Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

reply to post by badsam


The attempt on my part was not intended to spin what you said, just to point out that the current scientific explanation suffers from the same fatal flaws as the creationist explanation does.

I'm not a creationist, but feel that the two opposing views are arguing a false dilemma.