Moon Theories

[AV1611VET]

As evidenced by 2.9 million posts.

Jealous, are we?

 

[AirPo]

Jealous, are we?

Nope. Fly all the kites you like.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Now I'm starting to suspect subterfuge, Derelict.

I brought up the moon theories in another thread and was told:

1. These moon theories are not "toys."
2. These moon theories are not "old."
3. These moon theories are not "falling apart" -- in fact, they are growing.

Then, when I started this thread, my stalker buddy chimes in and mentions they represent scientists "hard at work."

(Now which is it? are they "old toys, falling apart;" or are they representative of "scientists hard at work")?

And you think I'm the one with reading comprehension problems.

The "old toy" is the fact that there are many theories for the formation of the Moon, not the Moon formation theories themselves.

You guys are real pieces of cake, and very good at trying to make me wish I had never expressed my thoughts on any given point.

I've never seen you regret something you have posted despite the fallout from it. You surprise me.

And for the record, let's get this straight:

I did not post these as "hypotheses" ... I clearly ... clearly ... posted them as -- in their own words -- "theories."

The NASA site you referenced clearly states the newest collision model and the previous collision model as "hypothesis". The other site doesn't state the the Moon formation models are scientific theories. Their use of the word "theory" is something akin to saying, "I have a theory about why you have mud on your shoes."

 

[Oncedeceived]

You guys are real pieces of cake, and very good at trying to make me wish I had never expressed my thoughts on any given point.

[

Av please proceed. What are your thoughts on this subject?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Av please proceed. What are your thoughts on this subject?

I agree, he needs make a point regarding his love of posting that there are multiple models for the formation of Earth's moon.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree, he needs make a point regarding his love of posting that there are multiple models for the formation of Earth's moon.

That would be a welcome change.

 

[EternalDragon]

I agree, he needs make a point regarding his love of posting that there are multiple models for the formation of Earth's moon.

The point is that the formation of the moon, the earth, the sun, the lacking fossil record, abiogenesis, etc. are all a mystery for scientists because they are looking for natural explanations that do not fit the evidence but are unwilling to admit the idea that it was all created by an ID.

So I think the point here is that scientists have a lot of assumptions and models that don't fit the evidence but are unwilling to go where the evidence leads. That the evidence for God is staring them right in their face.

 

[lasthero]

So I think the point here is that scientists have a lot of assumptions

What assumptions?

 

[jayem]

What's the problem with having differing theories?

 

[EternalDragon]

What assumptions?

That start of the post. Perhaps you missed it?

 

[lasthero]

That start of the post. Perhaps you missed it?

There weren't any. Do we need to go over what an assumption is with you again?

 

[EternalDragon]

There weren't any. Do we need to go over what an assumption is with you again?

So if they know exactly how the moon formed, then present it please.

While you are at it, present the fact of how life started as well.

 

[lasthero]

So if they know exactly how the moon formed, then present it please.

While you are at it, present the fact of how life started as well.

That there are competing theories for something doesn't make them assumptions.

If you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

 

[Delphiki]

Thank you.

The next time I see someone downplay my point about how we got our moon (according to scientists), I hope I'll remember to QV them to this thread, that shows scientists "hard at work" to figure this out.

Except that whenever you bring it up, you try to use it as an example of some sort of inconsistency among the scientific community. Each hypothesis regarding the origin of the moon is considered plausible, with varying degrees of plausibility among them. As more evidence is found, the options will be narrowed down, with the most likely hypothesis gaining more and more certainty.

So whenever you bring it up in conversation, you're wrong to do so. Largely because (and I assume here) you feel that the following bit from the link you posted can "take a hike."

Generally, work over the last 10 years has essentially ruled out the first two explanations and made the third one rather unlikely.

 

[DerelictJunction]

That start of the post. Perhaps you missed it?

But the first part of your post which included:

...a mystery for scientists because they are looking for natural explanations that do not fit the evidence but are unwilling to admit the idea that it was all created by an ID.

was incorrect, at best, and a deliberate fabrication, at worst.

Since it was so abysmally wrong, it would help us if you would point out some of the "models that don't fit the evidence" and a few of the assumptions. You will likely be questioned about your examples, especially regarding how they "don't fit the evidence".

 

[Strathos]

This is in the wrong forum

 

[AV1611VET]

As more evidence is found, the options will be narrowed down, with the most likely hypothesis gaining more and more certainty.

I've been told this before, and I still disagree with it.

The more evidence is found, the more theories (or hypotheses) are put forward.

That's where there are two new ones now.

 

[jayem]

The more evidence is found, the more theories (or hypotheses) are put forward.

What's wrong with that? That's how the scientific method works.

 

[Split Rock]

Just for your edification, here are some theories as to how we got our moon:
SOURCE
Two Moons Theory

You forgot one:

The Moon is Made of Cheese Theory.
Is the moon made of cheese? - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The Moon IS Made Out Of Cheese!

 

[Split Rock]

I've been told this before, and I still disagree with it.

The more evidence is found, the more theories (or hypotheses) are put forward.

That's where there are two new ones now.

What will you say when these are eventually paired down to one or two? Will you just stop mentioning the moon in this forum?