• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How did we get our moon?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by AV1611VET, Nov 4, 2011.

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

  1. The Fission Theory

  2. The Capture Theory

  3. The Condensation Theory

  4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory

  5. The Ejected Ring Theory

  6. The Two Moon Theory

  7. Don't Know & Don't Care

  8. Don't Know & Do Care

  9. Other

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    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.
     
  2. Huram Abi

    Huram Abi Guest

    +0

    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.
     
  3. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    When/where does the formation of the Moon fit into this?
     
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  5. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    What does falsifiable mean AV?
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Capable of being falsified?
     
  7. LowLight

    LowLight He who fights monsters

    22
    +1
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Got any rabbits from the Precambrian?
     
  8. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    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.

    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.

    I think it is actually used among biologists to refer to someone who studies evolution. Not very often, to be sure.
     
  9. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    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.
    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.:)
    ^_^
     
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That wouldn't work.
     
  11. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    Wiki does not say that.

    What were you expecting to happen when a scientific theory is falsified?
     
  12. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    Right, and just because something could be falsified, doesn't mean it will.
     
  13. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  14. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    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?
     
  15. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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?
     
  16. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    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?
     
  17. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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 ....."
     
  18. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  19. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    I really hope you're smarter than that made you sound.
     
  20. metherion

    metherion Veteran

    +329
    Catholic
    Married
    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
     
Loading...