My Lunar Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. The same answer you got from Aggie's post #6 back in 2009. So...... what is the point in bringing this thread back again?

To give Aggie the thumbs-up: 173 .

 

[Split Rock]

The moon is no older than when you sneezed.

Ahhhhh... but I created it not only ex nihilo, but also Fully Mature with billions of years of embedded age. Got you, evo!

 

[Split Rock]

To give Aggie the thumbs-up: 173 .

I miss Aggie... although perhaps he was expecting a bit too much politeness from an internet discussion forum...

 

[AV1611VET]

I miss Aggie... although perhaps he was expecting a bit too much politeness from an internet discussion forum...

His last session on here was 7th of April, and his profile says he's a college student.

Maybe he graduated and is now pursuing his interests elsewhere?

 

[BananaSlug]

Ahhhhh... but I created it not only ex nihilo, but also Fully Mature with billions of years of embedded age. Got you, evo!

How old does the moon have to be to be "mature"? Was it created with all of those impact craters?

(The "embedded age" answer would be: "who said anything about craters?")

 

[Split Rock]

How old does the moon have to be to be "mature"? Was it created with all of those impact craters?

(The "embedded age" answer would be: "who said anything about craters?")

There's this guy on YouTube who claims that the craters on the Moon were created by the impact of frozen water, shot out from the earth at supersonic speed during The Flood. This doesn't seem to address the simple fact that the Dark Side of the Moon (which faces away from the Earth) has more craters than the Near Side. Of course, when it comes to creationist pet-theories, anything (and everything) goes...

 

[BananaSlug]

There's this guy on YouTube who claims that the craters on the Moon were created by the impact of frozen water, shot out from the earth at supersonic speed during The Flood. This doesn't seem to address the simple fact that the Dark Side of the Moon (which faces away from the Earth) has more craters than the Near Side. Of course, when it comes to creationist pet-theories, anything (and everything) goes...

I've heard my share of creationist pet theories. Just like I had my own when I was a creationist. This is all stuff I made up and actually believed:

Since everything was created perfect in Eden, none of the animals defecated (including Adam and Eve).

The Tree of Life prevented genetic mutations from interfering with cellular functions, allowing eternal life.

The Garden of Eden was on Venus, which is protected by the Cherubim with the sword of flame (Venus' atomosphere).

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.
​

Dear AV, Genesis 1:16 indicates that the Moon (lesser light) was a product of God. This means that He caused the event to happen which produced the Moon in order to give light to the night. I'm sure that some all knowing Evol will jump up and say that the Moon does not produce light. God didn't say it did. He simply says that He caused the Moon to exist for the night.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to light the night: He made the stars also.

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure that some all knowing Evol will jump up and say that the Moon does not produce light.

They have already -- and I countered it with a video showing that reflected light can be considered the property of the light from the object that reflects it.

If they still want to argue it, it's fine with me.

After all, the Bible goes on to say --

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

-- meaning I'll be glad to pull rank on them and simply say: THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

So the choice is really theirs.

They can believe It is talking about the proprietorship of reflected light, or we can pull rank and say It is talking about some law of science as yet undiscovered.

Of course, they'll take the latter explanation, so they can ridicule; but that's to be expected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.

Bumped for reasons obvious.

 

[Astrophile]

Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.

At present the scientific evidence suggests that the moon was made out of terrestrial material, or that both the moon and the earth were made out of pre-existing material. According to Junjun Zhang et al., in 'The proto-Earth as a significant source of lunar material', Nature Geoscience, 5, (4), 251-255 (2012), The proto-Earth as a significant source of lunar material , 'the 50Ti/47Ti ratio of the Moon is identical to that of the Earth within about four parts per million, ... The isotopic homogeneity of this highly refractory element suggests that lunar material was derived from the proto-Earth mantle'.

 

[AV1611VET]

At present the scientific evidence suggests that the moon was made out of terrestrial material, or that both the moon and the earth were made out of pre-existing material.

It could be made of green cheese for all I care.

I'm just wondering if academians are willing to admit they have no evidence for the moon coming into existence ex nihilo.

If I produced a glass of water, and asked an academian if it was empty, I'm almost certain he would say, "It has water in it."

These evasion tactics are telling.

 

[pgp_protector]

Got board AV? had to Necro a 9 year old thread to get more attention?

 

[AV1611VET]

Got board AV? had to Necro a 9 year old thread to get more attention?

Did I not say FOR REASONS OBVIOUS?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It could be made of green cheese for all I care.

I'm just wondering if academians are willing to admit they have no evidence for the moon coming into existence ex nihilo.

Huh? Isn't it the crackpot side that claims the moon was created ex nihilo? Very few scientists would have a problem saying they have no evidence of ex nihilo creation.

If I produced a glass of water, and asked an academian if it was empty, I'm almost certain he would say, "It has water in it."

The smart money would disagree. The most likely response would be "no."

 

[Kylie]

Why?

Show me evidence that a pink unicorn does not live under Split Rock's bed.

That's easy, she lives under MY bed!

 

[Ophiolite]

AV1611VET said: ↑
Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.

We know that virtual particles can appear, which is a form of ex nihilo formation.
Some hypotheses for events leading to the Big Bang consider ex nihilo formation.
Consequently there is no a priori reason to reject ex nihilo formation in the case of the moon.

However, is there any evidence that this was the case? The answer is yes: the moon exists. If it did not exist then its ex nihilo formation would be irrelevant. Its existence is consistent with ex nihilo formation. Unfortunately for the argument that this is how it was formed, its existence is also consistent with just about every other hypothesis for its formation.

Thus, while we can confidently say there is evidence that "the moon was created ex nihilo" that evidence is so weak as to barely constitute evidence and it can safely be disregarded.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know that virtual particles can appear, which is a form of ex nihilo formation.

No, it isn't.

It is a form of ex materia formation.

The energy is already there.

And virtual particles don't last long.

 

[Kylie]

No, it isn't.

It is a form of ex materia formation.

The energy is already there.

And virtual particles don't last long.

Actually, you are wrong.

Well, wrong sometimes.

Usually, virtual particles do not violate conservation of energy. From THIS page...

Particles decay via force carrier particles. But in some cases a particle may decay via a force-carrier particle with more mass then the initial particle. The intermediate particle is immediately transformed into lower-mass particles. These short-lived high-mass force-carrier particles seem to violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass -- their mass just can't come out of nowhere!

A result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that these high-mass particles may come into being if they are incredibly short-lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. Such particles are called virtual particles.

Virtual particles do not violate the conservation of energy. The kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.
​

And one a little more technical (it has some maths in it):

When a particle interacts with other particle it will emit virtual photon, which is reabsorbed by the particle instantaneously.

...

However it does appear to be violating the law of conservation of energy for a very short span of time ... thus within this span of time the particle energy cannot be calculated(uncertainty principle of energy and time), thus an energy violation is allowed in this interval.​

But let me ask you... What happens if one of these virtual particles is emitted from a particle just before it crosses the event horizon of a black hole? If the virtual particle created races away from the black hole while the original particle crosses it, then the virtual particle can't be reabsorbed and thus there is something created from nothing.