How did we get our moon?

[cupid dave]

Once again, did you read the question?

It is evolution -- planetary evolution; that's why I put this poll in C&E and not P&LS.

When Internet evolutionists start yakking about evolution, they usually only yak about two kinds of evolution (out of six): [5.] macroevolution and [6.] microevolution.

But in so-doing, they skip over billions of years of:

1. Cosmic Evolution -- the origin of time, space and matter
2. Chemical Evolution -- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution -- the origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution -- the origin of life from non-living material.

A real evolutionist would understand this -- in my opinion; but an Internet evolutionist takes 1-5 above on faith, and 6 on observation.

Yes, there have been seven cosmic stepes that lead to this moment in our Evolution and unfolding of Reality:

 

[Phred]

Once again, did you read the question?

It is evolution -- planetary evolution; that's why I put this poll in C&E and not P&LS.

When Internet evolutionists start yakking about evolution, they usually only yak about two kinds of evolution (out of six): [5.] macroevolution and [6.] microevolution.

But in so-doing, they skip over billions of years of:

1. Cosmic Evolution -- the origin of time, space and matter
2. Chemical Evolution -- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution -- the origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution -- the origin of life from non-living material.

A real evolutionist would understand this -- in my opinion; but an Internet evolutionist takes 1-5 above on faith, and 6 on observation.

Nope. Only an ignorant creationist tries to conflate the word "evolution" to mean everything and anything that evolves with the biologic evolution which is what we're talking about. And above "organic evolution" as you call it is "abiogenesis" not evolution of any kind.

My goodness this is just a litany of ignorance.

 

[Belk]

It's not if you don't pick one -- it's if you haven't picked one.

I can claim I'm an International Chess Master, but if asked what my favorite opening is, and I claim I don't have one, my credentials are questionable.

Funny thing about International Chess Masters, they are not designated as such on criteria set by a little old lady in Topeka who does not know thing one about chess. There are actual criteria for such. Why don't you go ahead and give us the dictionary definition of an "evolutionist"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny thing about International Chess Masters, they are not designated as such on criteria set by a little old lady in Topeka who does not know thing one about chess.

No kidding.

A 'little old lady in Topeka who does not know thing one about chess' wouldn't be calling herself an International Master, would she?

There are actual criteria for such.

Yup.

Why don't you go ahead and give us the dictionary definition of an "evolutionist"?

I'm not interested in what they are -- my point is what they aren't; and if you want the definition of what they aren't from my perspective and [right to have an] opinion, read these posts.

 

[jayem]

The prevailing theory is that the Moon was created by an impact. But the object which collided with the Earth would have been about the size of Mars, not a planetessimal. I'm not a cosmologist, but from what I've read about it, this sounds reasonable.

The OP seems to conflate evolution with metaphysical naturalism. Evolution is a facet of naturalism, in that it's an explanation for the diversity of life that doesn't invoke supernatural events. The Standard Model of cosmology is another derivative of the naturalistic viewpoint. But labelling everything that rejects supernatural entities and forces as "evolution" creates confusion and leads to a thread getting sidetracked.

 

[metherion]

AV-
You do know that

Cosmic Evolution -- the origin of time, space and matter

is completely unrelated to biological evolution, and is actually in the non-evolution domain of physics (mostly theoretical, nuclear, and astro physics)?

You do know that

Chemical Evolution -- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

is not biological evolution at all, but is actually nuclear fusion, again, a part of physics?

You do know that

Stellar & Planetary Evolution -- the origin of stars and planets.

is also not biological evolution, but is cosmology and (gasp in surprise here) MORE PHYSICS?

And you do know that

Organic Evolution -- the origin of life from non-living material.

is actually also not biological evolution, but molecular biology and biochemistry?

And there are no Theories of Chemical/Cosmic/Planetary/Stellar/Organic evolution, but rather, only one Theory of Evolution that resides specifically in biology?

The whole 6 kinds of evolution thing is a dishonest crock that I believe originates from Kent Hovind, since only two of them relate to the actual theory of evolution, and those two are split with a moving goalpost that can really only be defined as “the split that science hasn’t shown happened yet”, and they get freely changed to keep it that way.

Metherion

 

[Belk]

No kidding.

A 'little old lady in Topeka who does not know thing one about chess' wouldn't be calling herself an International Master, would she?

Set by, not calling herself one.

Yup.

I'm not interested in what they are -- my point is what they aren't; and if you want the definition of what they aren't from my perspective and [right to have an] opinion, read these posts.

I see.

You know, I really have nothing but negative things to say about this so I think I will just leave it alone. Later AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

The prevailing theory is that the Moon was created by an impact.

I don't care about the 'prevailing theory' -- prevailing theory said Thalidomide was a wonder drug.

I care about what you -- if you claim to be an evolutionist -- think.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV-
You do know that

is completely unrelated to biological evolution, and is actually in the non-evolution domain of physics (mostly theoretical, nuclear, and astro physics)?

You do know that

is not biological evolution at all, but is actually nuclear fusion, again, a part of physics?

You do know that

is also not biological evolution, but is cosmology and (gasp in surprise here) MORE PHYSICS?

And you do know that

is actually also not biological evolution, but molecular biology and biochemistry?

And there are no Theories of Chemical/Cosmic/Planetary/Stellar/Organic evolution, but rather, only one Theory of Evolution that resides specifically in biology?

The whole 6 kinds of evolution thing is a dishonest crock that I believe originates from Kent Hovind, since only two of them relate to the actual theory of evolution, and those two are split with a moving goalpost that can really only be defined as “the split that science hasn’t shown happened yet”, and they get freely changed to keep it that way.

Metherion

As I said, you guys skip billions of years of mechanical evolution, just to home in on one kind, biological evolution, then call yourselves "evolutionists".

And I feel I don't have to accept that.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm just wondering how AV will twist what's posted, or twist the results.

 

[Phred]

As I said, you guys skip billions of years of mechanical evolution, just to home in on one kind, biological evolution, then call yourselves "evolutionists".

No, you call us that. I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution. I don't accept YOUR definition of evolution and evolutionists. That's your creationist nonsense.

And I feel I don't have to accept that.

Really... who cares? You don't have a clue about most things why would this be any different? Accept it or don't. What's real is real and your acceptance won't change that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution.

.

 

[Orogeny]

As I said, you guys skip billions of years of mechanical evolution, just to home in on one kind, biological evolution, then call yourselves "evolutionists".

And I feel I don't have to accept that.

Who the heck calls them self an evolutionist? The only people who call us that are creationists trying to equivocate their silly beliefs to our evidentially supported fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who the heck calls them self an evolutionist?

Evolutionists?

The only people who call us that...

I'm not talking about what others call you.

Didn't you read what I said?

I'm talking about what you call yourselves.

You even quoted me in your answer.

 

[Phred]

Evolutionists?

I'm not talking about what others call you.

Didn't you read what I said?

I'm talking about what you call yourselves.

You even quoted me in your answer.

We call ourselves scientists or biologists or people who are interested in evolution. Never, ever have I called myself an evolutionist. That's a slur that you creationists call us to try and equivocate science with religion.

 

[Orogeny]

Evolutionists?

I'm not talking about what others call you.

Didn't you read what I said?

I'm talking about what you call yourselves.

You even quoted me in your answer.

We, by which I mean people who accept evolution based on the preponderance of evidence supporting it, do not call ourselves evolutionists.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yeah, we get it AV. You dont understand science.

 

[Split Rock]

I think that's covered by other. I love the word choice though.

AV, I really hope you get around to answering how evolution has anything to do with the source of the moon.

Personally, I think the moon is the result of a cosmic oyster. A very large one.

If the moon came from an oyster, why are there still oysters?? HA GOTTCHA EVO-LOOPIE!!!

 

[Cute Tink]

If the moon came from an oyster, why are there still oysters?? HA GOTTCHA EVO-LOOPIE!!!

They are not the same as Earthly oysters. A cosmic oyster could never give birth to an Earthly oyster nor could an Earthly oyster give birth to a cosmic oyster. If it did happen, then evolution would be debunked, so any evidence that it ever did happen has been hidden away by evolutionists.

Obviously.

 

[metherion]

As I said, you guys skip billions of years of mechanical evolution, just to home in on one kind, biological evolution, then call yourselves "evolutionists".

And I feel I don't have to accept that.

Except we don't' call ourselves evolutionists. Anti-science people call us evolutionists, because they've lumped all science they don't accept, call it evolution, and say we believe all of it like a religion. And it doesn't help that people are lumping up multiple definitions of evolution and using them all at once.

We don't accept it either. How many times have you seen people here saying "We're not evolutionists, because -ist makes it faith like a religion has, but it isn't a religion." or something similar?

Metherion