Origin of the Moon

[dad]

The problem with people who believe things without any evidence is that they believe that anyone else who has an opposing or contradicting view is simply just holding a belief also. Especially if this "view" is not simple enough for them to understand.

You believe something about the moon no? Show us the evidence!

 

[madaz]

Naturalists have no real answer for how the universe came about.

Do you have an answer better than godidit?

 

[Heissonear]

Do you have an answer better than godidit?

For this day and age you give a common internet debator reply to a matter you have ZERO evidence about - is their a Creator?

You sound assured that there is no Creator but you can't prove it.

Where is your goddidnotdoit evidence?

Or do you follow men, a crowd follower?


Now, to the OP, tell us about past solar accretion processes that involved cataclysmic collisions of planetesimals. Is this accurate dynamics in the origin of the Earth and Moon?

Yes, no, maybe, or elaborate?

.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Numerous scientific research publications have been presented over past 30 posts that are from reputable scientists on the origin of the planets and moons in our solar system.

These research publications tell us about past solar accretion processes that involved cataclysmic collisions of planetesimals. Is the dynamic accretion process scientifically accurate for how the Earth and Moon came into existence?

Yes, no, maybe, or elaborate?

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For this day and age you give a common internet debator reply to a matter you have ZERO evidence about - is their a Creator?

You sound assured that there is no Creator but you can't prove it.

Where is your goddidnotdoit evidence?

Or do you follow men, a crowd follower?


Now, to the OP, tell us about past solar accretion processes that involved cataclysmic collisions of planetesimals. Is this accurate dynamics in the origin of the Earth and Moon?

Yes, no, maybe, or elaborate?

.

Hissonear, the burden of proof about the existence of a creator is upon you. Most atheist do not believe in gods because there is no logical reason to do so. I won't make a positive statement either way, I will not say there definitely is a god or there is definitely not a god. If I did the burden of proof would be upon me.

Now, it is assumed that the accretion of planets was a natural process because that is all we ever observe in nature. If we want to claim an unnatural process made the planets we would need massive evidence to support this belief. There is not one whit of evidence. Wait, let me rephrase that: There is not one whit of reliable evidence that supports your claims.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

You believe something about the moon no? Show us the evidence!

I believe the moon is circular.

Here is my evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe the moon is circular.

Here is my evidence.

Funny how scientists can harp on flat earth and geocentrism and four corners of the earth and sun & moon standing still; while at the same time appreciate a half moon, quarter moon and crescent moon.

 

[Heissonear]

Hissonear, the burden of proof about the existence of a creator is upon you. Most atheist do not believe in gods because there is no logical reason to do so. I won't make a positive statement either way, I will not say there definitely is a god or there is definitely not a god. If I did the burden of proof would be upon me.

Now, it is assumed that the accretion of planets was a natural process because that is all we ever observe in nature. If we want to claim an unnatural process made the planets we would need massive evidence to support this belief. There is not one whit of evidence. Wait, let me rephrase that: There is not one whit of reliable evidence that supports your claims.

As a former Naturalist this is where I eventually recognized the faith Naturalism required. In understanding natural processes for all things there is eventually a point where faith is the bases for what you perceive. Godless scientists are keen on there methodology so to the public it is presented as "a hypothesis", one's own scientific view until proven wrong.

This is now known as Scientism. It is a walk, talk, and view of existence that is only based on natural processes and the application of science. Scientism is a religion based on faith. It is a Naturalistic Religion that isolates itself from any need or recognition that there is a Supernatural Realm and a Creator beyond the Natural Realm. To walk in Scientism you have to not believe (i.e. reject) there is a Creator. However, you have no evidence or proof He does not exist. You have zero proof to deny He exists. Yet a Scientismist will say events like the formation of the Earth and Moon were through natural processes. However, is a belief, a viewpoint of how one sees nature, past events, and existence. They walk by faith in Scientism.

In addition, as you slyly injected "where the burden of proof lays", they over promote Scientism to the point they openly and blatantly proselytize all others who walk and talk on earth. They present Scientism as the only way to "realistically" view nature past and present around us. They present to all others Scientism is the religion to walk in.

There is a serious problem Scientism and its ardent followers have. It is the promotion of their unbelief about a Creator. They have no proof TO KNOW FOR SURE there is no Creator or Supernatural Realm. Zero evidence or proof.

In their Religion they believe the "burden" to prove if His is is upon non-Scientismists. Unbelief stands ardent until someone proves TO THEM, again TO THEM, TO SCIENTISMIST that there is a God and Creator.

There lies the serious problem. The Naturalistic Scientismists took the CHANCE, THE POSITION in there early steps of understanding the natural realm, that a Creator did not exist. They derived this not by proof but by NO EVIDENCE TO THEM.

I'm sorry, but it is time to face your fallacy. You have ardently pushed your beliefs onto others and said they have the burden to prove otherwise, if there is a Creator. You shifted the burden of proof so in your unbelief you blatantly promote Scientism over all.

The result, "believers" need to rationally convert "unbelievers in heart", many "hardened" in their error.

.

 

[dad]

I believe the moon is circular.

Here is my evidence.

Very good. Keep up the good work, and research. We are all better informed now. Long as you do not cal it a perfect circle you may be on the right track.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a former Naturalist this is where I eventually recognized the faith Naturalism required. In understanding natural processes for all things there is eventually a point where faith is the bases for what you perceive. Godless scientists are keen on there methodology so to the public it is presented as "a hypothesis", one's own scientific view until proven wrong.

This is now known as Scientism. It is a walk, talk, and view of existence that is only based on natural processes and the application of science. Scientism is a religion based on faith. It is a Naturalistic Religion that isolates itself from any need or recognition that there is a Supernatural Realm and a Creator beyond the Natural Realm. To walk in Scientism you have to not believe (i.e. reject) there is a Creator. However, you have no evidence or proof He does not exist. You have zero proof to deny He exists. Yet a Scientismist will say events like the formation of the Earth and Moon were through natural processes. However, is a belief, a viewpoint of how one sees nature, past events, and existence. They walk by faith in Scientism.

In addition, as you slyly injected "where the burden of proof lays", they over promote Scientism to the point they openly and blatantly proselytize all others who walk and talk on earth. They present Scientism as the only way to "realistically" view nature past and present around us. They present to all others Scientism is the religion to walk in.

There is a serious problem Scientism and its ardent followers have. It is the promotion of their unbelief about a Creator. They have no proof TO KNOW FOR SURE there is no Creator or Supernatural Realm. Zero evidence or proof.

In their Religion they believe the "burden" to prove if His is is upon non-Scientismists. Unbelief stands ardent until someone proves TO THEM, again TO THEM, TO SCIENTISMIST that there is a God and Creator.

There lies the serious problem. The Naturalistic Scientismists took the CHANCE, THE POSITION in there early steps of understanding the natural realm, that a Creator did not exist. They derived this not by proof but by NO EVIDENCE TO THEM.

I'm sorry, but it is time to face your fallacy. You have ardently pushed your beliefs onto others and said they have the burden to prove otherwise, if there is a Creator. You shifted the burden of proof so in your unbelief you blatantly promote Scientism over all.

The result, "believers" need to rationally convert "unbelievers in heart", many "hardened" in their error.

.

Nope, there is no such religion as "Scientism". That is a false label that people who cannot defend their claims use. The moderators need a "Ninth Commandment" warning that they can issue here. It would not be a claim that you are necessarily lying, but you are to say the least just about across the line.

I was not sly at all in pointing out who has the burden of proof. That is a fact that you cannot get around.

One more time, the rules of logic says that the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof put upon them.

But thank you for playing. Your inability to defend your statements shows that even you know that they are wrong. If I make a statement, about the age of the Earth, evolution, or other topics, I can and will provide evidence if asked. If someone asks for evidence that god does not exist I will admit that I don't have any. That does not make my atheistic beliefs false. The reason that I don't believe in your God or any other is the same reason that you do not believe in Russell's Magic Teapot. There is no evidence of a magic teapot on the far side of the Moon, so why believe in it?


Remember, I am not shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof was never upon the nonbeliever. It always is upon the believer. It does not matter what the topic is. If the topic was evolution the burden of proof is upon the person believing the theory of evolution. Luckily for us all of the scientific evidence is upon our side. If you want to prove that there is a Zeus, Big Juju, or even Christian God the burden of proof is upon the believer. Not believing in a god is not a positive statement. You do not need evidence to not believe in something.

 

[gungasnake]

Our solar system went through a series of disasters a few thousand years ago. Our moon was most likely captured during one of those events.

 

[pgp_protector]

Our solar system went through a series of disasters a few thousand years ago. Our moon was most likely captured during one of those events.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Below is another paper presenting current research and understanding about the origin of the Moon.

Yet another "celestial impact" is presented to account for the crystalline differences found on the Moon, particularly rock bodies with incompatible elements compositions.

Also presented is "magma fractionation" estimates for mineral constituents observed from Lunar rocks.

This once again is presentation of what looks and sounds like science but is mere conjecture based on godless Naturalist walking, talking and viewing physical existence through Scientism.

A Second Lunar Magma Ocean?

M ARION G RANGE * AND A LEXANDER N EMCHIN .

Curtin University, Department of Applied Geology, GPO box U1987, WA 6845, Perth, Australia.
*(correspondence: m.grange@curtin.edu.au)

The Lunar Magma Ocean (LMO) model is one of the key concepts in the current understanding of lunar evolution. It is used to explain a range of geological, mineralogical and chemical characteristics of the Moon, such as the presence of anorthositic crust, a reservoir enriched in incompatible elements and mare basalts.

The LMO model suggests that the lunar crust, made up of Ferroan-Anorthosite (FAN), formed by segregation and floatation of plagioclase from the magma ocean, after ~75% of the initial liquid has crystallised as mafic cumulates. After ~95% solidification, the remaining liquid is enriched in incompatible elements (e.g. K, REE, P, U, Th, Zr…) and constitutes the KREEP reservoir. Although this reservoir has never been sampled as such, its existence is indicated by incompatible elements enrichment in some plutonic rocks, which are interpreted to be emplaced into the FAN crust. These rocks are also enriched in Mg and are referred to as Mg-suite. The presence of a KREEP component in this suite and the associated enrichment in incompatible elements also results in a widespread crystallisation of zircon in these rocks.

Very specific sequence of crystallisation predicted by the LMO model demands particular timing relationships between FAN, KREEP reservoir and Mg-suite rocks. However, absolute dating of FAN and Mg-suite samples reveals a significant overlap in ages that is inconsistent with the LMO model. In particular, the contradiction is highlighted by the recently obtained precise ages of (i) the oldest lunar zircon at 4417 ± 6 Ma [1], which must represent the youngest possible limit for the formation of KREEP reservoir and (ii) a sample of FAN at 4360 ± 3 Ma [2], which suggests the oldest limit for the lunar crust crystallisation.

The only way to resolve the controversy posed by chronological data is to accept the possibility of a second magma ocean on the Moon at ~4360 Ma, resulting from a massive impact and probably restricted to the near site of the Moon.

[1] Nemchin et al. (2009) Nature Geosc. 2, 133-136. [2] Borg et al. (2011), Nature 477, 70-73..

.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

.

Below is another paper presenting current research and understanding about the origin of the Moon.

Yet another "celestial impact" is presented to account for the crystalline differences found on the Moon, particularly rock bodies with incompatible elements compositions.

Also presented is "magma fractionation" estimates for mineral constituents observed from Lunar rocks.

This once again is presentation of what looks and sounds like science but is mere conjecture based on godless Naturalist walking, talking and viewing physical existence through Scientism.




.

Just because you don't understand geochemistry, doesn't mean it isn't science.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Can anyone say conjecture and academic imaginations? The following has no evidence that it really happened, much less 4.36 billion years ago? Massive impact, second magma ocean, etc.

Additionally, it requires one to be a Scientismist. Someone godless and seeing everything happening through physical processes.

The only way to resolve the controversy posed by chronological data is to accept the possibility of a second magma ocean on the Moon at ~4360 Ma, resulting from a massive impact and probably restricted to the near site of the Moon.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

.

Can anyone say conjecture and academic imaginations? The following has no evidence that it really happened, much less 4.36 billion years ago? Massive impact, second magma ocean, etc.

Additionally, it requires one to be a Scientismist. Someone godless and seeing everything happening through physical processes.

Which is evidenced by lunar basalt flows.

 

[Heissonear]

.

The scientists who walk in Scientism present there hypothesis of things in the past as if there are real and really happened. However, it is pure conjecture, not reality.

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.

The scientists who walk in Scientism present there hypothesis of things in the past as if there are real and really happened. However, it is pure conjecture, not reality.

.

I see -- in your reality, there is no past.

 

[Heissonear]

.

People who walk in Scientism present their religious views of how the Earth and Moon formed and evolved over time. The below is another example of conjecture. With little evidence they state big things.

Did I mention that they like to blatantly proselytize?

A two-stage scenario for the formation of the Earth’s mantle and core

E. K AMINSKI 1 * AND M. J AVOY 2
1 Institut de physique du globe de Paris, 75005 Paris, France, (*correspondence: kaminski@ipgp.fr)
2 Institut de physique du globe de Paris, 75005 Paris, France, (javoy@ipgp.fr)

Various geophysical constraints on the deep Earth point to a chemically heterogeneous mantle. Based on such constraints, Bulk Earth compositions inferred from Enstatite chondrites (E-Earth composition) predict that, whereas the Primitive Upper mantle (PUM) had a pyrolitic composition, the Primitive Lower mantle (PLoM) was enriched in Fe and Si and depleted in Mg, Ca and Al relative to PUM. We will explain how, in E-Earth formalism, this chemical heterogeneity can be related to the formation and differentiation of the Early Earth, and mantle Si and Fe variations reflect variations in the efficiency of Si and FeO dissolution in the metal phase during core formation, through the reaction SiO 2 +2Fe metal =Si metal +2FeO which increases progressively the fO 2 of the silicate. In the simplest and most direct scenario of homogeneous accretion, we calculate by mass balance the composition and the mass fraction of the metallic extract in equilibrium with a pyrolite. The O, Si and Ni contents of this metal extract correspond to a silicate-metal equilibrium at high pressure (50±5 GPa) and high temperature (3500±500ºC), in line with a giant impact scenario. The mass of pyrolite produced during that stage is significantly smaller than the mass of the Bulk Silicate Earth. Mass balance calculations then yield the composition of the proto-core and the proto-mantle prior to the giant impact. We obtain that the core of the proto-Earth was almost devoid of oxygen, hence formed under lower pressure and temperature conditions, in agreement with an early differentiation of planetesimals in the early solar system.

In such a two-stage scenario of Earth’s core formation, no massive silicate differentiation is required to create a pristine mantle heterogeneity. The concentration of lithophile elements in the Primitive Lower mantle, notably Ca, Al, U and Th, can then be constrained using RLE ratios in E-chondrites and in the upper mantle

http://goldschmidt.info/2013/abstracts/finalPDFs/1423.pdf

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.

People who walk in Scientism present their religious views of how the Earth and Moon formed and evolved over time. The below is another example of conjecture. With little evidence they state big things.

Did I mention that they like to blatantly proselytize?

Jealousy is an ugly thing, Heiss -- just sayin'