Posted on 06/05/2014 1:18:44 PM PDT by Natufian
To be fair I’m the one who brought Hell into the conversation. But they imply it with their “Thou shalt not go farther than the pages of scripture” point of view.
I would think that the moon event happened before there was much of a crust formed, and the impact would have heaated up the impact area enormously, as well as leaving a big ‘hole’.
As the continent areas cooled and the crust deepened, it would be a very long time before the hole filled in and the continents and their viscous underlayer were pulled in to help fill it. Geologic events are very slow and long-term.
If it’s not King James, it’s just mans word.
Yeah...that damned pesky science that is not complete and or finalized and is but theory...yeah...that stuff. Look, goofball, if you want to devolve into a science vs. religion conversation you’re not going to get one, but if you’re part of the lying crowd that postulates theory as fact as I accurately accused then by all means be an that person!
Thanks .
|
Thank you too
That issue is discussed in the article.
Yes, it’s a theory based on evidence. If you have a problem with the scientific method, try to avoid science posts.
A more likely theory is that the Moon was captured, and the asteroid belt could easily be the Moon’s original location.
Why is it more likely if the chemical signatures of moon rock show that it’s at least partially made of rocks found on earth?
Is anything of astronomic proportions created peacefully?
God was playing pool and hit a combo off Mars and Earth to knock Venus into Uranus.
Theory...your problem, and it is yours, is that theory becomes a religion of sorts...I will rest with settled science that has no further investigation required to it just as you, but unlike you I will not peddle lose theory or even scientifically developed conjecture as FACT. You are better served by intellectual honesty not myopic world view.
We have a sample of maybe 100lbs out of 7.35e22 kg of moon stuff. Pretty hard to say anything definitive about a sample as minuscule as that.
What problems do you have with the evidence that the scientists have found?
Nice try...you are making a new argument that does not exist...why do you insist on protecting those making claim that things are a fact, settled when in fact they are but theory? Why is this okay to you?
What argument am I making that doesn’t exist? As far as I can see, no one is claiming it as fact. Look at the title of the post. Can you see the word ‘suggest’? The article itself is riddled with the words ‘hypotheses’, ‘theories’, ‘evidence’ etc. etc. The same goes for all the other articles I’ve read about it as well.
Why don’t you stop with the whining and hand waving about a non-issue and tell us what it is about the study and the evidence it has produced that upsets you.
Who are you kidding here? Seriously...you get off on getting in the face of people when they make mere suggesting that much of what gets peddled in our society re science is peddled as fact...the mere challenge to that becomes too hot for you to handle...me thinks you not only protest too much but that you’re trying to invent something that was never there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
