Origin of the Moon

[bob b]

I hate to say "I told you so" (but I will anyway ), but some time ago I reported here that the most favored theory of how the Moon originated received that status not because it was such a good theory but instead because all of the other theories had been shown to have very serious deficiencies.

Here is an excerpt from an article in a recent Planetary Report:

"In many respects, our Moon is the best-studied body other than Earth.... If we have already learned so much, what do we expect to gain by going back? .... I argue ... that we really don’t understand the Moon very well, and that it is a body the understanding of which features prominently in our attempts to figure out what took place when the planets formed.
The Apollo program and subsequent research revealed that our Moon is an oddball.
What’s wrong with the standard story of the Moon that we need more explanation to fix the story? ... Part of the answer lies in something that often happens in science: we have a story that is widely accepted, but it is a story that is actually incomplete and poorly tested. To some extent, the so-called giant impact origin of the Moon has gained acceptance through the failure of alternatives rather than through its evident correctness.
Several alternatives to the impact origin have been proposed.... All these alternatives have very major and extensively studied shortcomings. This is, however, not the same as saying that we know for sure that the giant impact happened—it simply seems more likely than rival hypotheses."

Lunar Mysteries Beckon by Dave Stevenson - Planetary Report

 

[SUTG]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[HistoryKid]

The moon is also said to be hollow. Thats slightly odd, but no one ever talks about it. Why? Because it could mean that the earth is also hollow. What else could that mean if looked at deeper? Who knows.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Gerald]

I hate to say "I told you so" (but I will anyway ), but some time ago I reported here that the most favored theory of how the Moon originated received that status not because it was such a good theory but instead because all of the other theories had been shown to have very serious deficiencies.

Mind explaining why this is a problem?

After all, "Goddidit!" doesn't have much to recommend it...

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The moon was still created by God, and there will never be any proof to the contrary. You don't see the Truth because you refuse to see the truth.

 

[HistoryKid]

The moon was still created by God, and there will never be any proof to the contrary. You don't see the Truth because you refuse to see the truth.

Where's your proof that Yahwe created it?

 

[Gerald]

Where's your proof that Yahwe created it?

In that moldy old book he carries around...

 

[HistoryKid]

In that moldy old book he carries around...

Right, the one with all of the stories in it and all of the wild claims and nothing to back them up with...

I see. So, if I write a book and claim to have created the planet, and in 2000 years or so people are still reading it does that make it so?

 

[Gerald]

Right, the one with all of the stories in it and all of the wild claims and nothing to back them up with...

I see. So, if I write a book and claim to have created the planet, and in 2000 years or so people are still reading it does that make it so?

Apparently... :chuckle:

 

[HistoryKid]

I think I'm gunna do it.

 

[ThePhy]

I hate to say "I told you so" (but I will anyway ), but some time ago I reported here that the most favored theory of how the Moon originated received that status not because it was such a good theory but instead because all of the other theories had been shown to have very serious deficiencies.

Here is an excerpt from an article in a recent Planetary Report:

"In many respects, our Moon is the best-studied body other than Earth.... If we have already learned so much, what do we expect to gain by going back? .... I argue ... that we really don’t understand the Moon very well, and that it is a body the understanding of which features prominently in our attempts to figure out what took place when the planets formed.

The Apollo program and subsequent research revealed that our Moon is an oddball.

What’s wrong with the standard story of the Moon that we need more explanation to fix the story? ... Part of the answer lies in something that often happens in science: we have a story that is widely accepted, but it is a story that is actually incomplete and poorly tested. To some extent, the so-called giant impact origin of the Moon has gained acceptance through the failure of alternatives rather than through its evident correctness.

Several alternatives to the impact origin have been proposed.... All these alternatives have very major and extensively studied shortcomings. This is, however, not the same as saying that we know for sure that the giant impact happened—it simply seems more likely than rival hypotheses."

Lunar Mysteries Beckon by Dave Stevenson - Planetary Report

I hope the spots above in which you chose to insert ellipsis (…) contain more information of substance. The sum of what you shared is that there were multiple theories about how the moon formed, and upon examination, one of the ideas was found to be more likely than the others.

Questions throughout science, as well as many other fields undergo this type of scrutiny. I fail to see what you are focusing on that is so unusual in this case.

I assume your highlighted part best encapsulates your concerns. That says we don’t know for sure that the giant impact happened. Duh, really? If it really happened it was early in the solar system, long before anyone had a Polaroid to photograph it. So we are left to examine the evidence, just like a detective is.

Then your highlighted part says the impact hypothesis is more likely than the other explanations. Duh, really? Just like detectives narrow their list of suspects until they feel they have a prime suspect?

Do you know why the impact hypothesis is considered the most likely correct one? The reasons are simple – can you tell us? And the questions that the impact hypothesis does not do a good job of explaining?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

I see. So, if I write a book and claim to have created the planet, and in 2000 years or so people are still reading it does that make it so?

It might not even take 2,000 years...just look at Joseph Smith!

 

[DoogieTalons]

It might not even take 2,000 years...just look at Joseph Smith!

or L Ron Hubbard...

 

[Skeptic]

I hate to say "I told you so" ....

Bob, all you have succeeded in telling us is, essentially, that you think science is inferior to your literalist version of Biblical dogma. A strength of science is that theories can be modified by new evidence and analysis. But you consider this a weakness.

Your supernaturalistic hypotheses are based upon old fairy tales and superstitions, and are not subject to modification by new evidence and analysis, which is one of the prime weaknesses in your world view. As long as you continue hold on to the view that your Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally as absolute unchanging Truth about the origin of the universe and life, you will continue to be anti-science.

 

[bob b]

Bob, all you have succeeded in telling us is, essentially, that you think science is inferior to your literalist version of Biblical dogma. A strength of science is that theories can be modified by new evidence and analysis. But you consider this a weakness.

Again you commit the error of over generalizing. I have great respect and regard for the scientific method when applied to ongoing operation of this world. But the scientific method cannot be applied to ultimate origins, and in that arena the Bible is our most reliable guide.

Your supernaturalistic hypotheses are based upon old fairy tales and superstitions, and are not subject to modification by new evidence and analysis, which is one of the prime weaknesses in your world view.

Again, science is great for ongoing operations in this world. It fails when people try to apply it to ultimate origins.

As long as you continue hold on to the view that your Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally as absolute unchanging Truth about the origin of the universe and life, you will continue to be anti-science.

No, I consider that the Bible is the most reliable guide to origins, and those who think that science can be applied to origins are totally wrong, and in effect living in an irrational dream world.

 

[Skeptic]

No, I consider that the Bible is the most reliable guide to origins, and those who think that science can be applied to origins are totally wrong, and in effect living in an irrational dream world.

The Bible is a "reliable guide" to origins? :kookoo:

Do you have any evidence that science could NEVER find satisfactory explanations for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, the origin of the moon?

Please explain why science could NEVER give plausible explanations for these things.

Also, please explain why the Bible could EVER give plausible explanations for the origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of the earth, or origin of the moon.

*Poof* is simply not an acceptable explanation.

 

[bob b]

*Poof* is simply not an acceptable explanation.

Those without an argument use ridicule instead (Poof), but the Moon was actually formed.

Read your Bible and see.

And if that doesn't convince you try science for a change. The moon is not made of green cheese. We know that because the astronauts brought back the evidence.

 

[Skeptic]

Those without an argument use ridicule instead (Poof),

Your supernaturalist argument does not amount to *Poof*?

but the Moon was actually formed.

By what processes?

Read your Bible and see.

I have read it. It does not explain how the moon was formed. ... Positing supernatural forces, in the absence of evidence, is not an acceptable explanation.

And if that doesn't convince you try science for a change. The moon is not made of green cheese. We know that because the astronauts brought back the evidence.

Is that all you got out of the missions to the moon -- that the moon is not made of green cheese?