Scientists on the Moon

[Paulos23]

Well if Jesus couldn't open His mouth w/o being wrong in you guys' eyes, I can do the same.

(Gandhi quote in three ... two ... one ...)

You love to play word games, it is evidenced in your posts. You love to show people wrong on a tecnicality you derived from the Bible.

And you don't care that what you say doesn't match up with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

The science articles I read have all seemed to settle down on the moon being the result of a collision between the proto-earth and a Mars size body between 4 and 5 billion years ago.

Then why did a new one just recently come out?

Do you have any current (within the past 10 years) alternate suggestions?

Will last year do?

Did Venus Give Earth The Moon? Wild New Theory On Lunar History

 

[AV1611VET]

It's part of common dishonest tactics:

Scientists aren't completely sure about something = scientists know nothing and evolution is wrong

Why don't you let me handle the question put to me, instead of butting in with a wrong answer?

 

[Paulos23]

Why don't you let me handle the question put to me, instead of butting in with a wrong answer?

No, I think he nailed that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I think he nailed that one.

Even though he asked for an "alternate suggestion" from the last ten years; and not only did I give him one from last year, I gave him a "theory" from last year?

And you still think he nailed it?

Good for you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Even though he asked for an "alternate suggestion" from the last ten years; and not only did I give him one from last year, I gave him a "theory" from last year?

And you still think he nailed it?

Good for you.

Well, thanks for the one alternate suggestion, which even those who put it out there seem to think is really quite unlikely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, thanks for the one alternate suggestion, which even those who put it out there seem to think is really quite unlikely.

You're welcome.

Here's another recent doosey -- this one from NASA:

NASA - NASA Lunar Scientists Develop New Theory on Earth and Moon Formation

 

[EternalDragon]

Either way, you wind up with what man says.

You are mistaken.

Lev. 1:1 And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,.....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You're welcome.

Here's another recent doosey -- this one from NASA:

NASA - NASA Lunar Scientists Develop New Theory on Earth and Moon Formation

Well, that one seems a bit more likely to me than the one involving Venus. By the way, every airless body in our solar system, including our own moon, is covered by impact craters. There are traces of impact craters left on our earth, but they are clearly very old.

what is your idea of when all those impacts on the planetary bodies actually occurred?

 

[AV1611VET]

what is your idea of when all those impacts on the planetary bodies actually occurred?

My idea is that they occurred when the Rebellion took place between the good angels and the bad angels.

QV please:

I can't speak for comets, but all this dust that supposedly accreted and became the sun, moon, stars, and whatnot never existed until after the battle between Michael and Lucifer, when much of God's creation was pocketed with craters and smashed to rubble and dust.

God created a pristine universe, void of "floaties."

 

[Sasquatchit]

I have a suggestion for by brothers and sisters in Christ.

Until scientists settle once and for all how we got our moon (from about seven different hypotheses), let's go with what the Bible says.

Then, when scientists finally do settle on [what they think is] the right one; let's just say -- by faith -- they are wrong.

Agree or disagree?

Go with what God says, or what man says?

I agree 100% unless of course they actually come up with the right answer!

 

[Sasquatchit]

You're welcome.

Here's another recent doosey -- this one from NASA:

NASA - NASA Lunar Scientists Develop New Theory on Earth and Moon Formation

NASA isn't exactly the "Go to guys" for getting answers. It would seem they airbrush things out of their pictures and then make believe there is nothing there. Their pics r nothing more than fairy tale pics.

 

[Dizredux]

NASA isn't exactly the "Go to guys" for getting answers. It would seem they airbrush things out of their pictures and then make believe there is nothing there. Their pics r nothing more than fairy tale pics.

Interesting, are you saying that all the NASA photographs are fake? Boggled minds are interested.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

NASA isn't exactly the "Go to guys" for getting answers.

I like to bring NASA up to those who think they can let a valid refutation slip by me.

Paul pulled this on me:

The science articles I read have all seemed to settle down on the moon being the result of a collision between the proto-earth and a Mars size body between 4 and 5 billion years ago.

... and while I believe what he said (about there only being one theory now), I think he needs to read more.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Sorry, but that is a false standard. And where the Moon came from has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Last if it was answered you and your kind would only move the goal posts once again.

Here is another suggestion. Try being honest with yourself for once. It is amazing how the scales fall from your eyes once you quite lying to yourself.

And if you want to claim the Bible is "What God says". You are going to need a heaping portion of evidence to support that claim. Right now we can only say it is a book written by man.

I see nothing but lies and false accusations made in the above.

The Lord has this to say about such people:

2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...."

4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, bec. they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;"

4 "and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

My idea is that they occurred when the Rebellion took place between the good angels and the bad angels.

QV please:

Fascinating. What about the asteroid belt? What's your idea for its origin? Bear in mind that the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt took millions of year to form.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I like to bring NASA up to those who think they can let a valid refutation slip by me.

Paul pulled this on me:


... and while I believe what he said (about there only being one theory now), I think he needs to read more.

Hey, I appreciated the links!

 

[AV1611VET]

I see nothing but lies and false accusations made in the above.

NASA and other science-staffed organizations that have their hands in our pockets need to make it look like they're actually progressing in their respective fields.

I believe that's why we get those dime-a-dozen science articles almost daily about something that winked at them in their telescopes or microscopes.

Let a satellite pass Pluto -- (Neptune now) -- and you'll hear their versions of, "Elvis has left the building!"

Hype -- that's all it is.

I wonder how many people ... myself included ... can even name the satellites and other junk that's up there flying all around everywhere doing basically NOTHING?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fascinating. What about the asteroid belt? What's your idea for its origin?

I believe the universe was created pristine and without "floaties;" but is now occupied by dust and debris due to a cosmic battle that took place some 6000 years ago between good and bad angels.

The asteroid belt is no exception.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, I appreciated the links!

So did I.