Moons: their origin, age, & recession

LOL ... so , since a Nazi believes in God (a smart Nazi), I should too? Sorry, I fail to see the significance.

quote:

---

if there were several such occurrences on the moon over the last several milleniums then the time frame of evolutionary cosmology concerning the moon is blown out of the water.

---

Don't you wish. There's that niggly issue of the fact that crater counting is done in conjunction with radiometric dates for moon rocks. That uncomfortable fact you keep ignoring. Here, I'll help you with it: Radiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More Methods

quote:

---

I would suggest you read my posts on the volcanic activity that has been repeatedly sighted by credible witnesses over the centuries. My evidence is based on observation.

---

People centuries ago who saw stuff and gave their interpretations of it? You realise how many people today see stuff and do the same thing, i.e. identifying aircraft and weather balloons as alien spacecraft?

quote:

---

Yours is not.

---

You didn't read my last post then. You couldn't have anyway, because you replied to it so quickly. I'll hazard a guess that you're not interested in what anyone else is saying here either, even though it's hilariously proving that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

quote:

---

Evolutionists don't have a clue.

---

Well, since evolutionists study biology, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have a clue, anymore than I'd expect an astronomer to be able to explain the significance of the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase, or than I'd expect a blinkered opponent of science to understand any of the answers to the questions he just posed.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I wanted to jump into this thread, but it so quickly became uncontrollable nonsense and awckward that I quickly gave up lolI am tempted to start another thread on lunar recession, so we can calmly and slowly discuss it. (calypsis's thread accumulate pages at a high rate to say the least)

I wasn't talking merely of Triton, I was talking about ALL moons in retrograde motion. Not only so but kin to that huge problem is the matter of planets which are spinning on their axis in retrograde motion from the other planets.Unless stellar evolution is false, then all of this is directly against the laws of angular momentum. Of course, one simple observable example of a planet or a moon developing in retrograde motion would destroy this position but there is no such observation.

Hmm, so you will believe scientists who give an evolutionary interpretation to things even over matters that they DON'T KNOW, but you won't believe what we DO KNOW: the witness of those scientists who observed phenomena of active volcanism on the moon, a la Wm. Herschel, etc.Boy, howdy, that's really scientific!

My apologies. I simply can't keep up. I have not moved from this computer since early this morning but I still have other responsibilities to tend to so I try, but cannot possibly keep up with all the points in the many counter-posts.I will look back at what you said.

'debris'?Is that the best you can do?

quote:

---

I wasn't talking merely of Triton, I was talking about ALL moons in retrograde motion.

---

Of course I realise you weren't talking merely of Triton... I WAS. I was pointing out that Triton is THE ONLY LARGE MOON in our solar system with a retrograde motion.I can't cite the following statement from any particlar source, but it stands to reason (to me anyway) that retrograde motion (whether in an orbit or in the spinning on its axis) probably develops quite a lot easier in a smaller body than a larger one, given the energies involved.Retrograde orbits and rotations are the leftovers of the great billiards game that formed our solar system. I fail to see how they are any sort of evidence of intelligent design.

Gee, I wonder why that is?Maybe because evolution is the most boring, illogical, disinteresting pile of refuse that man ever dreamed up & its exact opposite (creation) fills the intellectual void of nothingness and explains not only WHAT happened but WHY it happened and WHO did it all.But moving on, show us how this: Evolved into this: Give an observed example.

Billiards? We haven't seen any billiard games either. We see star systems colliding with each other resulting in destruction and vast explosions, but nothing yet that has created moons, still less entire solar systems.

quote:

---

Hmm, so you will believe scientists who give an evolutionary interpretation to things even over matters that they DON'T KNOW, but you won't believe what we DO KNOW: the witness of those scientists who observed phenomena of active volcanism on the moon, a la Wm. Herschel, etc.

​

Boy, howdy, that's really scientific!

---

No, but I will believe the scientific community when virtually every member of that community comes to a consensus conclusion about something. That strikes me as being considerably more scientific than going along with the lunatic fringe simply because they spout nonsense than happens to agree with nonsense from ancient writings of various shepherds, or cherry picking quotes out of context from people who agree with the scientific consensus and pretending that those quotes support my beliefs.The fact that you find the latter approach more scientific than the former says a great deal more about your idea of what constitutes science than it says about science itself.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

(creation) fills the intellectual void of nothingness and explains not only WHAT happened but WHY it happened and WHO did it all.

---

IT DOES?!?!Ok then enlighten us. What happened? Why did it happen? Who did it all? Note: your explanations should use scientific terminology so it can be universally understood by all peoples across the globe regardless of religious inclination, and must be supported by evidence.I still haven't gotten an answer from you about the 4.6 billion year old moon and what you think of the zircon crystal evidence.Your way of thinking is hopelessly useless to those of us that expect logic and reason in our arguments. It sounds to me that you are trying to say religion has all the answers, but that we must be willing to take it all on "faith". Hogwash.

Really? Creationism can explain what, why, and who? Then can creationism explain HOW it happened?Science is primarily concerned with the HOW of the Universe. WHO and WHY are not often questions that scientists asks. That's usually the realm of philosophers and theologians, not scientists.Again, you argue under the assumption that science and religion are working at cross purposes, each trying to answer the same question. But the truth is that religion often tries to step into science's domain, answering HOW, but science rarely, if ever, tries to step into religion's domain, answering WHO or WHY. Give an observed example of God creating the heavens, the earth, and all life in 6 days.

And if the 'scientific community' is wrong(?) a la Piltdown, Haeckel's ridiculous drawings, Nebraska man, Coelacanth, and most lately Archeoraptor?Understand that evolutionists do not comprise the entire scientific community. Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Gary Parker, Steven Austin, John Morris, John Sanford, and even non-Christians Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe & the agnostic David Berlinski do not believe in evolution. I could name a couple thousand more I have listed in my files.