How did we get our moon?

According to planetary evolution, in your opinion, how did we get our moon?

  • The Fission Theory

  • The Capture Theory

  • The Condensation Theory

  • The Colliding Planetesimals Theory

  • The Ejected Ring Theory

  • The Two Moon Theory

  • Don't Know & Don't Care

  • Don't Know & Do Care

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
While I find the subject of interest, it does not matter to my outlook on life how the moon got to where it is.

What is important is that the process of discovery uses the scientific process, and the resulting hypotheses are parsimonious and falsifiable.
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
42

This actually is news to me.

I've never heard a person say that before.

Intriguing, to say the least.

Of course, some atheists don't really like being called "atheist", either.

What is a 'theistic evolutionist', in your opinion?


I don't have one. I think it is an unnecessary label that is also misused.

Cupid Dave has appendixed his theology into scripture and has called it "The theistic evolution bible interpretation." But what he doesn't understand is that the label's intent is an absolute rejection of Genesis in a literal sense.

I guess, as I am forming this opinion just now, that a "theistic evolutionist" is a person who overcomplicates who they are. They can just say "non-literalist." If they don't believe that Genesis says anything scientific, then scientific terms should not be used to describe the belief, because it confuses their identity with something that, they themselves purport, is not relevant to the content of the bible.

It's a non-useful term.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Biological Evolution:

The one that says the Plant Kingdom appeared before the Animal Kingdom.

Cosmic Evolution:

The one that claims...

Gen 1:1
Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation

Gen 1:2
Genesis 1:2


Gen 1:3
Genesis 1:3

Gen 1:4
The uncanny Bible accuracy regarding light...

Gen 1:5
Gen 1:5

Gen 1:6-7
Genesis 1:6-7... with a number of other "sevens"...

Gen 1:8 explains the sub-eras
Gen 1:8

Gen 1:9-10
Genesis 1:9-10... the uncanny Geological and Geographical accuracy


Gen 1:11-13
Genesis 1:11-13


Gen 1:14
Gen 1:14, the Solar Clock and the rise of Circadian Rhytym

When/where does the formation of the Moon fit into this?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
While I find the subject of interest, it does not matter to my outlook on life how the moon got to where it is.

What is important is that the process of discovery uses the scientific process, and the resulting hypotheses are parsimonious and falsifiable.
Just how long have these theories been 'falsifiable'?

I get the impression that they are falsifiable in name only.

After all, if they're 'falsifiable', then falsify them.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
For the love of flying purple ribosomes, don't take your science from Kent Hovind. What he terms "organic evolution" isn't called evolution by anyone else, for starters. (It is abiogenesis.) And the rest have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but others have told you that already.

I usually "yak about" biological evolution because I'm a biologist.

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.
On the other hand, if I claim I'm a biologist, not having a pet hypothesis for the origin of the moon does exactly diddlysquat to my credibility :)

Same if I claim I'm an "evolutionist" (though I tend not to claim that), because my use of the term refers to biological evolution.

And while we are here, hence my "don't know, do care" answer. Physics and astronomy interest me, but only as a layperson. So I'm kind of curious about the moon. Before this two moons idea came along, I would've voted on the old giant impact hypothesis, but I honestly just haven't paid enough attention to the two moons thing to pick between those.

Who the heck calls them self an evolutionist?
I think it is actually used among biologists to refer to someone who studies evolution. Not very often, to be sure.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Just how long have these theories been 'falsifiable'?
This sentence indicates that you do not know what 'science' is. All of that ranting, all of those years of posting here at this site, you have been aiming at strawman targets.

How long? Always. Scientific theories are falsifiable by definition.
I get the impression that they are falsifiable in name only.
What does falsifiable mean, in your own words?

What really matters is what *unfalsifiable* means, in the context of a sciences forum/subforum. Let me know when you work that one out.:)
After all, if they're 'falsifiable', then falsify them.
^_^
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Got any rabbits from the Precambrian?
That wouldn't work.
heck just finding a bunny skeleton in the wrong order of rock layers might be enough.
Nope.
Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.
SOURCE
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jazer

Guest
On the other hand, if I claim I'm a biologist, not having a pet hypothesis for the origin of the moon does exactly diddlysquat to my credibility :)
With science there is a hypothesis that best fits what is currently known. It may be a nice game to look at all the different theorys over the years, but in the real world you got to go with the best one that fits the information we have. ESP now we have mirrors on the moon and we can follow the path that the moon is taking away from the Earth. So we can run computer models to see what best fits the math that is currently available to us.

You are doing a VERY good job of helping AV1611VET to prove his point that science is a lot of nonsense a lot of the time.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
With science there is a hypothesis that best fits what is currently known. It may be a nice game to look at all the different theorys over the years, but in the real world you got to go with the best one that fits the information we have. ESP now we have mirrors on the moon and we can follow the path that the moon is taking away from the Earth. So we can run computer models to see what best fits the math that is currently available to us.

You are doing a VERY good job of helping AV1611VET to prove his point that science is a lot of nonsense a lot of the time.
How so? I told you, I told everyone, I'm a biologist. I'm not qualified to judge most hypotheses outside my field. The only way I can have an opinion is by listening to the experts who are qualified.

Considering that a new hypothesis has just entered the picture in this question, I don't think I'm in a position to have one favourite just now. But I also explained that, didn't I?

Would you expect a chess master to also be good at Warcraft? A car mechanic to be able to fix airplanes? A handball player to excel at water polo?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
I'm not qualified to judge most hypotheses outside my field.
Really you know nothing about the scientific method and how science works? In Biology do they promote the theory that does the worst job of explaining what is currently known. Or do they give more preference to the theory that does the best job of explaining what is currently know about the topic or subject?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Really you know nothing about the scientific method and how science works?
I know plenty. But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.

Would you expect a chess master to also be good at Warcraft? A car mechanic to be able to fix airplanes? A handball player to excel at water polo? A Shakespeare scholar to know the subtleties of Ancient Hebrew poetry?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
I know plenty. But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.
But you have the knowledge to evaluate the people that specialize in that area. For example: "Astronomers believe that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body smashed into the Earth, ejecting matter into orbit and lengthening our day to its present value of 24 hours." Where did the Moon come from? - physicsworld.com

Now what would cause you to believe that the Astronomers do not know what they are talking about and this is not where the moon came from? Why would you feel that you are not qualified to say: "Astronomers believe that ....."
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.
Then don't expect us to evaluate it, either.

If you, who are already a scientist, are telling us you cannot make a decision because that's not your thing, we laypersons will pass as well.

Evidently these theories aren't convincing enough.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then don't expect us to evaluate it, either.

If you, who are already a scientist, are telling us you cannot make a decision because that's not your thing, we laypersons will pass as well.

Evidently these theories aren't convincing enough.
The thing is, you do this already for tons of other fields. How many types of engineers are there, and how many types of architecture? Yet, if you want to build a building, do you ask a computer engineer what type of architecture is best? Or do you ask an architectural engineer? And do you disregard what the architectural engineer says because the computer engineer didn't know?

Or law. Let's look at law. Do you ask a divorce lawyer for advice on your criminal defense? Or do you ask a constitutional lawyer? No, you go to a criminal defense lawyer. Do you disregard what the criminal defense lawyer says because the divorce lawyer isn't sure if it's the best way to go? No.

So why is the double standard applied to science, specifically this case? You ask a question and the people who answer it are chemists, biologists, geologists, and you use THEIR answers to discredit what astrophysicists say. That is roughly the same as asking a constitutional lawyer, a divorce lawyer, and a civil lawyer the best way to arrange a homicide defense, and then ignoring what the criminal defense lawyer says.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0