Re: Schafly's moon

On Feb 26, 9:49 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/02/factcheckingtherepublicanr.php

"Lacking any other atheistic alternatives, some scientists assert that
the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which
created an orbiting ring of debris from the iron-poor surface of the
planet which eventually coalesced into the moon. This theory, however,
is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively
low levels of iron in the Moon's crust. Additional tests fail to
support the atheistic theory."

Sigh. Once one decides that the findings of science conflict with
one's religion, then one can't help but get dumber over time...

Are there any Creationists who post here who think this is a good
argument?

Kermit

Without a time machine who can say with a high degree of certainty
exactly what happened.

This would make a wonderful defense in court -- "Your Honor, members
of the jury, without a time machine, how can we say with any certainty
that my client actually committed the crime for which he is accused?"

The only problem is that we don't *need* a time machine to examine
past events; physical processes leave physical traces, much like a
criminal leaves fingerprints, or traces of DNA, or other evidence of
his activities.

We have some evidence that the accretion disk model of solar system
formation is correct: the primordial material returned by Stardust and
other probes, direct observation of accretion disks and planets around
other stars, etc. The composition of the Moon and it's orbital
inclination provide further clues to its origin.


---my 2 cents.

However, personally I /think/ that is highly unlikely a collision is how
the moon came into existence (that is just on a personal opinion). If an
asteroid (like the one that killed the dino's) could do the damage that
science claims it did for as long a period that science says it did;
Well, a collision with another celestial body would surly destroy the
earth and send it out of it's orbit.


You could do the math for yourself, and see what would actually be
necessary to destroy the Earth or knock it out of its orbit. IIRC,
the impactor was supposed to be roughly the size of Mars, which is a
little more than 1/10th the mass of the Earth. It's very likely that
the impactor was itself in orbit around the Sun, so that gives us some
upper and lower bounds on its velocity relative to Earth. The
collision would have been inelastic (both the Earth and the impactor
would have deformed from the force of the impact, meaning that a lot
of that kinetic energy would have been converted to heat instead of
altering the Earth's velocity), etc., etc.

Not claiming that's easy to do (it would certainly take me at least a
couple of hours to puzzle through), but that would at least be a
better response than "I don't think so, just because."

.

Relevant Pages
Loading